"Bill's Politics: Bad for TMP Business?" Topic

"After all, you think giving the Bahrainis the muscle to imprison doctors for having the nerve to give medical treatment to unarmed wounded democracy protestors equates to vaccinating babies….".

Don't have a clue where you got that from Bangor, since I've never mentioned Bahrainis ever on TMP, but you go ahead and keep making stuff up…..

Actually, on the weapons payment issue, your country only recently finished paying off that debt, if I recall correctly.

You're welcome for the nuke bomb technology from us, and the Poseidon missile system, as well.

Mako.. sigh…

The US gives military aid – which you class as 'humanitarian' to Bahrain.

Same Bahrainis shoot dead people who want the same rights as you enjoy – and imprison doctors for treating their wounds.

Yes, we did only just finish paying – my point was that whereas all kinds of nasty regimes get stuff for free from the USA, the UK had to pay you for helping to get rid of Adolf.

And the nuclear programme was something you got from us, just like you got radar and jet engines.

Regard climate change, there is far too much assumption that anyone who is unconvinced it is entirely up to humans, is a climate change denier.

Climate change is real.

***** But it has been real right through history. *****

It is mostly the cause that is disputable.

During the WAS and SYW the Thames froze over regularly. Campaign seasons had to be delayed because the European winters were long, the crops therefore ripened later and in order to feed the armies, needed to be taken in before too many men were sent off to fight.

Yet in the late Roman era climate change was a big factor in the fall of the Empire. Africa, once the breadbowl of Rome failed. The Northern areas suddenly abounded in grain supply because the weather became warmer. Instead of gaining money for selling wheat to the north, the Romans had to fork out money to buy wheat from the north. And the countries selling it to them….the dreaded barbarians….were eventually wealthy enough to overthrow the Empire. Some even to invade Rome.

There are other examples.

But none of that was due to human kind. it was nature at work.

Climate change is happening once again. What is in debate is the cause. Humans? Nature? a combination of both?

It is also happening much slower than the greens would have had us believe only a few years ago.

Then again….are we humans not just a part of nature's creatures on this earth. If you put too many sheep in a field they will eat all the grass, lots will die off until the numbers fall low enough for the rest to survive.

Because of our human nature and feelings, if there is famine or disaster we send help. Could it be that our mercy is against nature? Had we not sent help, might nopt the survivors of a famine in Africa, for example have emerged better able to cope next time? By sending help and keeping the people alive artificially are we making it worse for the next famine?

These are all deep questions that need to be discussed and thought out. Unfortunately there seems to be a line of thought that defines 'logical' as inhuman and of course that immediately stifles discussion.

Discussion and communication is how we can improve our world, yet at times it seems easier to get people to go to war and kill each other, than to get all the parties to communicate, discuss and solve.

The 'why cant we all just get along' plea is logic. But unfortunately we live in an illogical world society.

<q/>Respectfully Mal felt that the idea of me "carrying a gun into a restaraunt" was a bit "too much".
We disagreed to the point where he even assumed that I was trying to insinuate that I would've shot the person in the grocery store that had stolen my wallet, had I been him.

Did it go over the line? Yes…Had we discussed the concept of educating people on what they should know vs the tired old "Guns are bad! You Americans are crazy for owning them!" mantra, it would've been a more interesting conversation.

I had and have no ill feelings towards Mal…I simply think that he was wrong in his assumptions and I do believe that he overreacted on the posts and the discussions.

I dont believe I over reacted on anything. I honestly believe that the gun massacres in the USA speak for themselves and are blatantly obvious. There were two in quick succession immediately after I was dawghoused for mentioning the NRA.

I also find it hard to believe that people cannot see they are being manipulated by the NRA on behalf of big gun manufactuers.

I had an email a few nights ago about the American fear of having medical benefits such as the rest of the world enjoy. As an Aussie living in a free democracy I found it quite hilarious that the person sending me the email could have such a deep set fear and conviction that it was all communist stuff etc. In the USA nearly three times the population of my country are not able to access proper medical care….yet the fear of granting them that act of pure humanitarian mercy is considered communist inspired!!!
For those of us who live free and have all that, the suggestion is ridiculous to the point of being a joke on the sheer ignorance of those suggesting it.
The money behind the propaganda to instill that fear in those gullible enough to believe it, comes from those who profit most from it not being freely available. The giant medical insurance companies. They know it works everywhere else, but they also know that if it proceeds in the USA they will lose billions of dollars, so they propaganda the gullible by striking fear into them.

Another sent me an email depicting HIROSHIMA blown up at the end of WW2 and now booming….along with pictures of Detroit slums and ruins. The suggestion was that the Japanese are succeeding because they dont have a welfare system, while Detroit is in decline because they have one.

Hello….I live in Australia….we have a booming economy, one of the strongest in the world…and we also have a welfare system for those who need it. Japan does have a welfare system, its just of a very different type than the western model. There its the big companies that look after their life time employees, not the government.

Detroit declined because the big companies mishandled their factories and didnt care a damn about their employees. The work has been sent overseas. The slums are poor and the buildings are falling down because of mismanagement, not because of a welfare system.

To me, now approaching 70, I have always been amazed that so many Americans seem able to be sold the Brooklyn bridge if politicians or big business tell them its in their interest to buy the Brooklyn bridge to stop it falling into the hands of some enemy or it will bring on a natural disaster that will send zombies into the streets and the police will be sent to spy on them and sieze their guns.

I seem to have always got on very well with Americans I have met on a one to one basis. Nice people. But as a nation the USA is more like 'The land of the gullible manipulated' than the 'Land of the free.'

There is no sensible reason for ordinary people to carry guns. Especially in a restuarant, the instance that started my mention of the NRA manipulation of civil fears.

There is no sensible reason not to grant mercy and aid to the sick other than the maniupulation of civil fear by those who will gain from not doing it.

There is no reason not to give welfare to our fellow citizens in need, other than the maniupulation of civil fear by those who have a political agenda for not spending money on those they think are beneath them.

The above three 'BIG ONES' of modern America are all based on fear and no nation that lives in fear is truly free. it is only free when its citizens are safe, when they are treated equally, and their needs are taken care of.

Its not communist to care. Its not even the exclusive sphere of religions or charities to care. It is the duty of all of us to care for our fellow human beings.

The above three 'BIG ONES' of modern America are all based on fear and no nation that lives in fear is truly free. it is only free when its citizens are safe, when they are treated equally, and their needs are taken care of.

And what you don't get is that all that has to do with what we think our Gov't should and should not be responsible for, and what they seem capable of actually doing regardless of the power given to them). You also make assumptions that 'gun owner' = 'living in fear', which is an asinine assumption. I feel capable, and our laws allow me to take some responsibility for the safety of my family, property and self. I don't 'live in fear' at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

I'll ask you a simple question. As a law enforcement officer, how often were you called to prevent a violent (or even non-violent) crime vice called AFTER a crime was committed or at least in progress?

Follow up question: Do you consider it 'protecting' the people when you show up after the crime?

As for

. It is the duty of all of us to care for our fellow human beings.

This guy says it well:

Yes, we did only just finish paying – my point was that whereas all kinds of nasty regimes get stuff for free from the USA, the UK had to pay you for helping to get rid of Adolf.

I think you are confusing this
link
with this
link
link
link
link

This guy says it well:

Not bad but I like the classics:

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,(constrained, i.e. can not, should not, be forced)
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:"

..the American fear of having medical benefits such as the rest of the world enjoy.

Let's make a deal, Mal. I will not spout total nonsense about Australia, if you refrain from the same about the USA.

The American aid to Britain in WWII is interesting and controversial.

Some Americans like to think of the US as holy saviours. And I suppose in a way they were. It's just a shame Britain paid so heavily for it. The loan of the materiel indeed allowed an utterly broke UK to continue the war, where otherwise it would probably have had to sue for peace – but the American government made sure to profit from the situation. There was certainly nothing charitable about the aid – except for the part that let us use the materiel for free in the war, only to then pay through the nose for it for decades after.

Decades during which my parents – and their parents – remember the British austerity in the forties and fifties, the outright poverty and squalor, the bombed out slums and hovels that remained, lived in, right through to the sixties, because for so long there wasn't the money to invest in rebuilding. They remember the continued rationing for years after the war, well into the fifties; the loss of power, influence and empire throughout the world, even as the US gained their empire (in all but name), power, wealth and dominance. We also are all too aware that only recently has Britain finally managed to pay off it's debts to the US (that might have told the US govt something if they'd bothered to think about it), yet not for a moment did the US consider wiping out the debt. The war and it's aftermath broke Britain, and made the US. I'm not saying that everything was all the US's fault – the British govt insisted on expensive commitments such as, for instance, a nuclear program of it's own – but the US debt – and the interest – sure didn't help. So forgive us Brits if some of us are a little bitter when we say "thank you" through gritted teeth.

Incidentally, after the Battle of Britain in 1940 Britain was never again in danger of being invaded by Adolf. Britain saved itself thank you, with it's own blood and guts, a full year before Pearl Harbour happened. The resilience of British air power, and the strength of the British Royal Navy, ensured that Adolf became too afraid to attempt an invasion (and after he invaded Russia it was never again a possibility anyway). Afterwards Britain kept the war going – paupering itself in the process – so that the Yanks could later glide in and take the credit, glory and power (even though it was actually the Soviets that were mostly responsible for winning the war). Of course the US earned that glory with it's own blood and sacrifice – and I am not saying that wasn't appreciated, nor that the soldiers of the US were anything but heroes. They most certainly were. But don't make the mistake of thinking that by that sacrifice the US was "saving" Britain from Germany. Although many believed that – and still do – it didn't.

Though I grant that the US did liberate Western Europe, and by doing so, it most certainly DID save us from Communism. Thank you.

You're welcome

This guy says it well:

He's an idiot! Why would you want to vote for a government to use GUNS to give money the poor? What's he going to do, rob someone to give them the money??? Good grief. That is one of the most puffed up, total head up his own rear orifice statement I have ever heard. He's a pompous ass and probably a rich and comfortable one from the look of him.

I didnt see any of the people begging on the streets in the USA being 'forced' to accept help. They didnt seem to be getting any at all. I was shown one area of people living in cardboard boxes as if it was a tourist attraction and when I expressed concern for them the only response I got was "They should go get a job."

I'll ask you a simple question. As a law enforcement officer, how often were you called to prevent a violent (or even non-violent) crime vice called AFTER a crime was committed or at least in progress?

Both. But at least they were seldom gun confrontations and even it they were involved, at least we were likely to be better armed than who ever had to be stopped!!!!

When you vote for politicians to increase welfare you are voting for the Gov't to use force to collect money from one group and redistribute it to another. Period. You don't pay taxes the Gov't locks you up and or takes your property by force. If you cannot understand that concept, you are the one with his 'head up his own rear orifice'.

You didn't answer my whole second question, in part I suspect because the answer will be uncomfortable for you to admit. I'll ask it in a slightly more blunt manner.

Do you consider yourself as having protected the victims of violent crime? Or is it fair to say they were victims/had the crime committed against them? Do you feel good about that? Do you think the body or victim felt good about you showing up after they were murdered/assaulted? Do you think they maybe should have had the right to be safe, and assume some responsibility for their own safety if they chose to, vice wait for you and your buddies to show up after the fact?

Or in some perverse way do you feel that as long as they are forced to be relatively defenseless and rely on you and your cop buddies (who obviously could NOT defend them but could only take action AFTER the crime) you better justify the tax dollars spent on your salary (and now pension)?

Just curious.

On a personal level, I have a brother who is a cop in a big city (Houston) and know what they can/cannot do. I live in a rural area and know if I dial 911 the county sherrif's office is 13 miles away.

Scutatus puts it well.

What he neglects to mention is that US policy was specifically designed to crush British power post-war to force us out of the Empire business.

Hence the often bungled de-colonisation and a lot of misery around the world.

Which isn't to say that clipping our wings a bit in order to stop us forcing our will on others was a bad thing… though I note similar behaviour in other nations, not least the USA itself.

US policy was specifically designed to crush British power post-war to force us out of the Empire business.

Just got finished listening to 'Gandhi & Churchill' I recommend it, it's probably an illusion but history seems more authentic to me when no one comes out of it well but everyone has redeeming points. From that it seems Britain was already getting out of the Empire business with options narrowing down to brutal military repression or letting go.

But democratic nations and governments are not people and it's sheer foolishness to speak of them as if they were. They have no intentions or personalities, they are more like the indicator on a Ouija board, not completely directed by any particular one of the fingers placed on it. Even a man as powerful as FDR couldn't steer the ship of state as he liked and the fact is there were a lot of anti-British people in the U.S. Many were of Irish extraction you see and while they didn't realize how bad the Nazi's were they had some very clear conceptions about the English. I myself have relatives who were killed in the The Irish War of Independence which as you may know ended just 18 years before the British came looking for help. That's rather a lot to swallow don't you think? It was one thing to help you against a greater evil but my staunchly Democratic Irish-American relations wouldn't have given a plugged nickel to relieve the material suffering of the English – they had long memories you see and sadly many were imperfect Christians.

There is no sensible reason for ordinary people to carry guns. Especially in a restuarant, the instance that started my mention of the NRA manipulation of civil fears.

Obviously Mal you've never heard of Suzanna Hupp…

YouTube link

Think about this next time you go out and eat….

We were certainly getting the hell out of India – with the idea initially of turning it into a Dominion like Canada.

We had absolutely no intention of leaving Africa though…

Good point about the Irish-Americans, though one wonders why they thought America doing exactly the same to a number of countries would be better.

Murphy – I guess you just like living in a nation where violent death is relatively common.

I like living in a country where we get one mass shooting every decade.

Right, we've done global warming and are now onto guns….

… any chance of health care before Bill nukes the thread :)

The murder rate using firearms is 40 times higher in the USA than the UK.

Yep. Those guns are sure making y'all safer….

On a serious note, I have a question for those of you (on any spot of the political spectrum) so confident in your views that you choose to convert the rest of us.

Is there any evidence or argument that would make you change your obviously deeply held belief?

Taking global warming as an example. Is there a critical mass of dissident PhD opinions, contrary temperature data, leaked emails, etc that would persuade you that the science isn't settled? If the answer is no, how can you claim the mantle of science? And more importantly, why should anyone bother to discuss the matter with you?

More broadly still, has anyone ever had their core values or beliefs changed by a bumper sticker, a tweet, a blog, or a TMP post?

I really am just curious, but you can go ahead and hit me with a burst from your belt-fed ad hominem gun if it makes you feel better. I assure you that I won't return fire or try to convince you that I'm not a _______(insert your cherished pejorative here).

Good point about the Irish-Americans, though one wonders why they thought America doing exactly the same

History doesn't repeat itself, it only seems to if you don't look close. I can't think of anything America has done which was exactly the same as the English record in Ireland.

Like I said America and Britain are both complicated polities, there have always been Americans who stood up and spoke against our imperial tendencies, more I think than in Britain but in both places they were overruled by public opinion. This is mostly because status in our societies is largely conferred by wealth and imperialism gave irresistible opportunities. Personally I'm amazed we were/are not much worse.

The drive for status is something so instinctively ingrained in humans I don't see how it could be erased, only directed. Humans truly without ambition for status would hardly be recognizable. Perhaps wealth isn't the best way but it's what got Western Civilization out from under the oppression of hereditary rule and corrupt religious domination.

That's really what the basic political argument of our time is all about, how to channel human ambition.

Murphy wrote:

Think about this next time you go out and eat….

I will be sure to do just that.

And then I'll be grateful that I live in a part of the world where people suggesting that it's a good idea to carry guns into restaurants are generally considered to be complete loons.

74EFS – if you get a series of peer-reviewed papers which cast serious doubt on the science then obviously I'll change my mind.

But alas I don't see it happening.

T Meier – The English did of course have eight centuries to screw around with Ireland. The Americans managed a series of genocides on their own doorstep inside thirty years in the 19th century.

As for imperialism, the Americans are a good deal more subtle about it – controlling colonies through client governments rather than direct control. But the effect is the same.

We stole that land from the Injuns fair and square.

Is there any evidence or argument that would make you change your obviously deeply held belief?

The point of arguing for a belief, especially on a public internet forum, is not to convert the opposing side to your belief, but to convince -- to argue your point -- for those that are watching the debate but are undecided for themselves. A secondary benefit is to further define your beliefs in an issue.

Damon.

Makes me wonder also 74EFS Intel. I try not to "convert" others to my beliefs or views as some seemingly Self-righteous and judgemental individuals try to do. And even then some I don't think are trying to "convert" anyone more then using the chance to voice their angry and bigoted views to make they themselves feel superior and all warm and fuzzy. Just seems to me to be a total waste of time and bandwith.I am perfectly happy with what I say and do and how I live my life. For myself I could not care less what others think of me or how they live their lives. My life does not revolve around them and theirs mine. I come here to talk about wargaming and Military history and matters. Not to talk politics and religion.The odds are I will never meet 99.9% of the other posters here in my lifetime. And for some I consider that a real good thing. . Robert

The Americans managed a series of genocides on their own doorstep inside thirty years in the 19th century.

Now you see this is the thing, for it to be genocide it must be "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". So for it to be "the Americans" (presumably you mean the American government) committing genocide they had to deliberately set out to systematically kill people. For this to be true there would have to have been a resolution passed by congress to set out a plan (systematic) to just kill people, not kill them if they refused to co-operate or move or surrender, just kill them.

If that is true it comes as a big surprise to me. I realize you were probably just engaging in more hyperbole but can't you see how this sort of wild exaggeration would make people not take anything you say seriously?

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 could be considered such.

"Now you see this is the thing, for it to be genocide it must be "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". So for it to be "the Americans" (presumably you mean the American government) committing genocide they had to deliberately set out to systematically kill people. For this to be true there would have to have been a resolution passed by congress to set out a plan (systematic) to just kill people, not kill them if they refused to co-operate or move or surrender, just kill them."

Exactly. But that goes against what some views are.To them the US is BAD and no matter what logic you put forth it wont sway them. The hatred stays the same.

"I realize you were probably just engaging in more hyperbole but can't you see how this sort of wild exaggeration would make people not take anything you say seriously?"

Well I for one stopped taking him seriously a very long time ago. So you are correct in that. Robert

The English did of course have eight centuries to screw around with Ireland. The Americans managed a series of genocides on their own doorstep inside thirty years in the 19th century.

Let's not forget the quarter of the world you F'd over

As for imperialism, the Americans are a good deal more subtle about it – controlling colonies through client governments rather than direct control. But the effect is the same.

Subtle being taking over their governments with cash as opposed to landing an army and mowing down tens of thousands of natives with guns.

Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide, wrote this: "Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

T Meier – if the Americans weren't trying to eliminate the Indians I'd hate to see what you lot could do if you set your mind to something…

Gray Ghost – what quarter of the world would that be?

We did a lot of evil things, especially in Africa, but most of the Commonwealth seems remarkably well disposed towards us.

Certainly when we control a country we have the decency to instil a decent education system and some infrastructure.

And of course to teach the locals how to play cricket.

Subtle being taking over their governments with cash as opposed to landing an army and mowing down tens of thousands of natives with guns.

Subtle meaning getting the client government to do the shooting for you….

I may of course be wrong, but I can't think of any extermination campaigns of the British to measure up to those carried out against the Native Americans.

That may of course simply because we never had those particular circumstances to deal with. Certainly when we had a smaller number of settlers to accommodate, as in Kenya, we had no problems in turfing people off their own land.

Gray Ghost – what quarter of the world would that be?

The British Empire?

We did a lot of evil things, especially in Africa, but most of the Commonwealth seems remarkably well disposed towards us.

Perhaps because you now have to treat them as equal and negotiate with them as opposed to military rule.

We were certainly getting the hell out of India – with the idea initially of turning it into a Dominion like Canada.

That worked in Canada because the majority ruling people were anglo-saxons. India didn't want you to rule them, not in the 1700s and not in 1946.

and lets get one thing straight I'm not saying America never did wrong but it's this modern British/English view that everything Britain did as saintly and everything America does as evil that I object to.

if the Americans weren't trying to eliminate the Indians I'd hate to see what you lot could do if you set your mind to something…

The history of the United States relations with the Indians is complex, much of it is shameful, but in no way does it fit the characterization of "trying to eliminate", if there had been anything like such a program there wouldn't be three million Indians living in the U.S. today, which incidentally is a good estimate of the number here when Columbus landed, so if we were trying to eliminate them we made a very bad job of it.

Generally speaking, genocide

It is still not a fit even with that far more extensive definition (which would make the large majority of nations on earth genocidal at some point in their history) because there was no consistent plan. Various governments of the U.S. had differing policies, the hard line ones just wanted the Indians gone and didn't care about the consequences to them, the more moral ones recognized nothing could be done under the circumstances to preserve their lifestyle as it was and tried to implement policies which would be the best practicable for the Indians. Much of the failure of the better intended policies was due to corruption and the nature of popular government.

Really this is what anyone would know who had a passing acquaintance with the history, these characterizations are being flung around without regard to readily available and verifiable (insofar as any history can be trusted)facts.

If you want to call what the U.S. did 'spasmodic ethnic cleansing' I wouldn't argue, but genocide, no. The expulsion of the Cherokee was certainly 'ethnic cleansing' but them it sparked a constitutional crisis and could really be said to not have been a legal act of the U.S. government. Jackson should have been impeached for it.

link
link

That may of course simply because we never had those particular circumstances to deal with.

This is one area where you may not want to throw stones.

This reminds me of a father scolding his son and the son responding "But I learned it from watching you!"

Looks like two more people don't like what I say . Oh Well. Robert

Heres to hoping this political Genie gets put back in the bottle

Hey. I agree with you there 14Bore. But some juuuussst can't let it go .. Robert

You didn't answer my whole second question, in part I suspect because the answer will be uncomfortable for you to admit. I'll ask it in a slightly more blunt manner.

I did actually. But for some reason TMP dropped out and it did not appear.

Do you consider yourself as having protected the victims of violent crime? Or is it fair to say they were victims/had the crime committed against them? Do you feel good about that? Do you think the body or victim felt good about you showing up after they were murdered/assaulted? Do you think they maybe should have had the right to be safe, and assume some responsibility for their own safety if they chose to, vice wait for you and your buddies to show up after the fact?

Because of the atmosphere of civil fear in the USA many Americans seem to have no understanding of hwhat it is to live in a society where the likelyhood of violent crime happening to you is remote. It probably is remote in the USA too, but the atmosphere of fear promoted by those who can make a dollar out of selling weapons to panicable citizens probably produces a false reality of what the threat is. Hollywood probably doesnt help much either.

I felt good and felt I did my duty if by my presence on the street and consciencious patrolling, violent crime did not occur. Although long retired, I still feel good by being vigilant in my immediate neighbourhood and as such helping to create an atmosphere where such violence is unlikely.

If a violent crime did occur years ago when I was patrolling, then I did take it a bit personally and thus made all the more effort to track down the perpetrators and ensure it did not happen again. I was proud when on leaving a country city, the Chamber of Commerce gave me a farewell dinner of thanks because during the five years when I patrolled the CBD at night there was not one single major break-in of their businesses. I didnt steal apples, I paid for everything I bought and I didnt find a comfy spot to take a nap at night. I was always conscious that my job was a serious one and when later, in charge of a team, I made sure they kept at it too and didnt slack off.

An violence? Plenty of fisticuffs as in any society. We had a trio of murders in the same period of time, always in the surrounding country areas. Two out of the three instances were family related and one a fight between friends who fell out. None were to do with robbery with violence. Oh and there was a fourth one actually….but way out in the bush and related to an old WW2 score to settle between some immigrants.

So did I feel sorry for the victims. Yeah, of course. But I cant think of one where it would have made the slightest difference if the victims had been armed. So did I feel they were let down by not being protected? No. It was going to happen anyway. Life and death is like that. Just like traffic crashes, some things are going to happen. You cant prevent them all.

Did I feel good about the perpetrators being brought to justice and made an example of? Bloody oath I felt really good about that. The fact they did not get away with it was my guarantee of protection for the rest of the citizens and better than arming the population against what might not happen….and to 99.999 percent did not happen. It was my pride in my work that they did not get away with it and everyone else slept securely.

Do I own a gun now? Nah! I have no need of one. And because we got rid of civil owned guns a couple of decades ago now, I know it is highly unlikely any of my neighbours have guns, and only the most extreme of criminals would have them either. I live in a very safe society and can trust the Police to be well armed should my protection become an issue.

I'm a proud gun owner and collect both tactical and historical firearms. I believe it is probably our second most important right here in the US. The right to bear arms secures us as free people against a corrupt government. Take the guns from the people and they lose the ability to stop a corrupt government from repressing them as is an American right clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence. While I'm sure some possess guns because they are fearful of crime, for many the reasons are for hunting, collecting militaria, or simply because they're fun to shoot. That said, I do believe we need at least some gun control.

A couple years ago my state passed a law allowing those with concealed carry permits to be able to carry a concealed weapon into a restaurant/bar. My thinking is that it should be left up to the management whether they want patrons with concealed weapons frequenting their establishment. If I understand the law correctly you cannot ask someone to leave if they are known to be carrying a concealed weapon and have a proper permit.

At least one of the bars I frequent here in southwest Virginia is pretty rough, with fights occurring fairly often. There was once an incident in said bar, years ago before this law was passed, where one party pulled a gun and the other party pulled a knife and someone got stabbed. Thank God no one was shot. While the law says that the carrier of the weapon is not allowed to drink it still allows for someone to bring a gun into an establishment where others are drinking and tensions sometimes run high. But I reckon we as gun owners should just bow down before the mighty NRA.

For me the law gives too much leeway for vigilante justice. On the other hand it allows for a righteous gun carrier to protect an innocent from harm. I just personally think it is a terrible idea. Since this law was passed violent gun crimes in Virginia bars/restaurants have actually gone down. Some make the argument that this law is directly responsible for that. With only two years on the books I think the jury is still out on this one though.

I'm not saying that those with concealed carry permits are evil or anything of the sort. Many with concealed carry permits are the most responsible citizens I know, however, some are not. I'm pretty sure a few I know really want to be involved in a situation where they can legally shoot someone just to see what it feels like.

A few years ago at a friend's wedding one of the younger guests with a concealed carry permit was wearing a pistol at the ceremony. It was pretty obvious to the gun owners in the crowd as he was concealing a .45 holstered on his lower back. There was a bit of a bulge. Quite a few of the gun owners at the wedding, myself included, several with concealed carry permits themselves, questioned his motives in very snarky ways. He became quite embarrassed and locked the gun in his car during the reception. He is not well liked in my community as he continually carries this piece in situations where it is not warranted, like family get-togethers and such. Someone like him with a concealed carry permit is what scares me.

Gray Ghost – I think you'd be surprised at how the British are viewed across much of the Empire…

Generally as a necessary evil. People are glad we've gone but also recognise the good we did.

Some places (like Kenya) are more problematic due to our behaviour there.

But others, like Sierra Leone, would quite like us to take over the country again given their problems since.

If the Indians loathed us as much as you suggest, I doubt we'd have got several million volunteers to fight for us in WW2.

Good fences make wonderful neighbours, but there's not a lot of visceral anti-British feeling out there (though there is some).

I'm certainly not going to say we behaved any better than the Americans, merely pointing out that if the Americans were going to engage in anti-colonialism post WW2 (a reasonable policy) it would have been perhaps less hypocritical if they didn't then spend 40 years doing practically the same thing….

it would have been perhaps less hypocritical

This is the problem with talking about nations as if they were people, it leads to all sorts of weird thinking.

A nation can not be hypocritical any more than it can have a big nose or a bad habit. I suspect you probably mean if the U.S. were a person it would be hypocritical, which is accurate but a pointless irrelevancy. It serves only to foster bad feelings.

The reasons the U.S. had a policy which refused to support the British in retaining their empire were several. The most important was a considerable section of public opinion would not wear spilling American blood or spending American treasure for it even tangentially, also significant were influential American capitalists who wanted access to markets.

It might seem contradictory or hypocritical that a country which stigmatized and degraded a large section of it's own population because of their appearance would be concerned with how a foreign nation treated similar people but in fact it is a commonplace. This is what I mean by things being complicated.

To begin everyone finds virtue more easily when it costs them nothing. Espousing a good cause which only requires a posture or a refusal is a cheap way to feel good about yourself. You might not want to live next door to black people but if you decry the way the British Empire treats black people you can see yourself as not a bad person.

Then there were people who truly support a cause but find their efforts close to home stymied, attitudes are too hardened but an opportunity appears to put together a coalition each section with it's own reasons but all with the same objective so you apply your efforts where they are likely to bear fruit. Make no mistake, the direction American public opinion took with regard to the the British Empire contributed directly to the civil rights movement. Advocates for civil rights were later able to make the argument 'if it was wrong for them it's wrong for us'.

There is a lot more to be said but those are some of the main points, like I said, it's complicated, people are complicated when a lot of them act together gross simplification and characterizations just won't do.

JeremyR – you'll find that if the US government does want to really crack down on your rights, your weaponry will avail you nothing compared to what the Pentagon can throw your way.

I've never understood this argument.

No other democratic nation seems so utterly -scared of its government, nor so utterly contemptuous of the democratic process.

So sorry. Not a reason to own guns.

In any case, in what way does a bunch of people owning handguns constitute a 'militia' as mentioned in the Constitution?

If the Indians loathed us as much as you suggest, I doubt we'd have got several million volunteers to fight for us in WW2.

So, in 1939, the British Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow declared India's entry into the War without consulting prominent Indian congress leaders who were just elected in previous elections.
link

Personally, even though both of my grandfathers fought for the British Indian Army, I still disagree that they should have. The only valid reason would be that the Brits would make better masters than the Japanese.
link

Short answer They would have been worse off under the Japanese.
link

@Scutatus:

So forgive us Brits if some of us are a little bitter when we say "thank you" through gritted teeth.

Reminded me instantly of this gem:

YouTube link