End this love affair, please.

[Pearly]

I am not in the know about gun possession in other countries other than USA. I do know in the beginning of our country it was the right to carry firearms. I am sure some would like no one to have a weapon then when the bad guys come around to kill us we will not have any way to protect ourselves or our families.

Every Principal of every high school or university should be carrying a weapon to protect the students and themselves against these crazies that are roming around.

In Tennessee years ago there was a lot of gas stations being robbed. They went into this station one night and the station manager shot the guy with the gun and then shot his accomplice. After this there were no more stations robbed for years.

Pearly

[Dr. Shane]

My in-laws live in Central American countries where guns are illegal. All the gangs have them and they run roughshod over the rest of the population. Hot burglaries are common. Those are burglaries that occur when people are home. My wife's parents were burglarized three times while home before they bought a pit bull and they have yet to be burglarized with the dog in the house.

[carolaa]

[i'm pleased to understand that the Americans won the CIVIL war. Isn't that like beating yourself at poker?

[carolaa]

Gun ownership for individual Americans is a check and balance on the power of government.

Yet, for other cultures, such is not the tradition.

It may have been for other cultures when they first began, but the European cultures are very old while the U.S. is a relatively young country, and the stories of "how the West was won" are still pretty fresh in our minds. The U.S. was settled by pioneers who HAD to take care of themselves.

[carolaa]

[quote=Neil DDiogenes lantern...a Pacific Union yearbook...a flower...A special lantern??? Not sure what you mean here.....

[carolaa]

serial killers also seem to be an almost exclusively American phenomenon, with a few exceptions like Fred West and that guy in Russia.

...Jack the Ripper...

[carolaa]

It's handguns and assault weapons in urban locations that bother most of us.

You're exactly right. What possible reason could there be for an average citizen to own an assault weapon? But that's yet another thing we can thank Reagan for.

[carolaa]

The problem is that people are going to get guns, legally or not, and the police are often just as corrupt as the gangsters, plus their response time is pitiful.

I agree with Shane that the problem is deep-seated. We don't have the respect for others that we used to have. We feel entitled to have whatever we want, even if we have to steal it. Corporations care only about making money with little regard for how people are affected by their acquisitions, by-products, or workaholism. Our own government has trouble telling the truth and respecting the law. We cannot trust our government/police to protect us.

[John317]

Quote:

American won WWII! This is the World Series baseball mentality again. [/quote']

Without the US, Hitler almost certainly would have won the war. He came close to winning it anyway. Both Britain and the USSR were on the ropes by January 1942.

Two things defeated Hitler: a) his own mistakes, such as invading the USSR without giving his army enough fuel, blankets and food for the winter; and the US entry into the war.

[John317]

...Congratulations on winning the Revolutionary war but as I recall a number other countries were successful in winning their freedom from the British empire. Didn't the French also play a significant role too! In fact the Treaty of PARIS officially ended the war. You might want to give a nod to Spain and the Dutch too!

But there can be no question that it was the American Revolutionary War that was the seed of other country's revolts against British rule. It heavily influenced the French revolutionaries against royal tyranny as well.

And yes, the French did play a significant role in winning the war, but many of them were paid mercenaries. Half of the English army at this time consisted of German mercenaries. The overwhelming majority of blacks and Indians fought on the side of the British against the United States. The battles fought elsewhere between the British and the forces of Spain and Holland played an important role also. But essentially the reason for the US winning was that the Americans were determined to fight and die for their liberties and their independence. What's relevant to this thread is the fact that a good many Americans at that time were practiced marksmen and hunters and that the spirit of liberty was a powerful incentive in their lives.

Quote:

I'm pleased to understand that the Americans won the CIVIL war. Isn't that like beating yourself at poker?

Yes, Americans were on both sides of the war, of course, and both sides were equally good men. The South was wrong, but they didn't realize it at the time. (Let's not forget that many in the South, especially in the border states, actually went north and fought in the Union Armies against their brothers.) No one can study the lives of such men as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis, without concluding that they fought with the conviction that they were fighting for the right. I had ancestors fighting on both sides of that war, and am glad the North won. If they hadn't won, not only would slavery have continued (probably for another 25 years) but we would now be divided into two countries.

People don't realize how close the South came to winning. If Lincoln had lost the 1864 election, the Democrats would have made peace with the Confederate States, and that would have been that. This was the promise of the Democrats under their candidate, former General Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan. (Sound familiar?)

For a while Lincoln thought he was going to lose the election. (A lot of people hated him with a passion!) He won it in large part because of the tenacity and skill of Grant and because of some key victories by Northern armies just before the election: "Sherman marched from Chattanooga to Atlanta, defeating Confederate Generals Joseph E. Johnston and John Bell Hood along the way. The fall of Atlanta, on September 2, 1864, was a significant factor in the reelection of Lincoln as president."

[Bravus]

Just quickly on serial killers, I shouldn't have said 'almost exclusiovely', but the FBI's own research says something like 85% of the world's serial killers operate in America, which has far less than that of the world's population. I don't even know what that means, but do find it interesting.

[John317]

Just quickly on serial killers, I shouldn't have said 'almost exclusiovely', but the FBI's own research says something like 85% of the world's serial killers operate in America, which has far less than that of the world's population. I don't even know what that means, but do find it interesting.

I think I may know some of the contributing factors. Ironically it may have to do with the "American Dream," the great American promise, our terribly high ideals. It's the idea that this is the best the world has to offer-- whether rightly or wrongly-- so if one can't make it here with our potentials and our individual freedom, where else in the world is he going to go and do better?

There's an interesting, excellent book of essays written by Joan Didion, Slouching Toward Bethlehem, in which she argues that many terrible crimes are committed on the West Coast, and specifically in California, because here people come to the end of the rainbow, as it were. They come here and when they find that there's nowhere else to go, no further "West" except the ocean ("the dreams stop here"), they lose all their ideals and hopes and become bitterly disillusioned. (The title of Didion's book will be familiar to those who've read Yeats' poem, "The Second Coming.")

Maybe we have the kinds of crimes in America that we do partly because some of us put too much pressure on ourselves to fulfill certain impossible ideals, and then when we find it all slipping away, we turn against everything and just want to destroy. It's one partial explanation anyway.

[jasd]

>>Eee! Eee! Eee!<<

...whilst woefully rubbing teary eyes.

I developed that post with the thought that some geeky ‘puter-type on C/A might, possibly, create and copyright an emoticon expressing that sentiment. Might be a few dollar$ in it

[jasd]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."--U.S. Constitution, Amendment II

10 U.S. Code, Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Disabuse me should I err, but – I understand that the “militia” now includes those older than the above stated “45 years of age”: the limiting criterion now being the physical condition of the individual. Further,

since the civil rights act of ’65 the “militia” now includes – equally – women. (all rights and responsibilities applying to both genders – as feasible. Those ‘responsibilities include being prepared to assemble in the town square with a weapon {read gun} and cartridges in common use – to defend against all enemies without and within {though I suppose at that point the enemy would be within} )

Note: the phrases ” the right of the people” and “shall not be infringed” above in the Second Amendment – and note also that the Bill of Rights are

unalienable rights in that the American is endowed at birth with these rights – as they are given by The Creator. Now, then, to those who adhere to the

‘Seventh-day Sabbath concept’, as given by The Creator Gd – can one morally disregard a “natural right/responsibility” given by that same Creator?

[Dr. Shane]

The type of militia that existed when the Constitution was ratified no longer exist today. It was a civilian Army. Obviously, in order to have a civilian army the civilians must have the right to bear arms. While we no longer have a civilian army, the Court has set the precedent that the right to bear arms is one of civilian Americans. The point I make is that even when the militias were needed, their right to bear arms was to be "well regulated". So such regulation today does not violate the Constitution.

[David Koot]

I'm pleased to understand that the Americans won the CIVIL war. Isn't that like beating yourself at poker?

I said "America" won the Civil War. Americans fought on both sides. At issue was 'America' as one nation, the Federal form of government. The War for Southern Independence was fought by the South for the concept that each State was sovereign, as opposed to a Federal government. The nation and government of America, and the concept of America as one nation, won that War.

I would like to point out that it was won very, very largely because General Ulysses S. Grant developed the military doctrine which has been adopted by the U.S. Army ever since--that is, to annihilate the enemy army. The same doctrine was followed by Ike in europe during the Second War, when Monty and Churchill wanted a less painful alternative. But with the Germans, as with the South, there was no other way. Grant initiated the grim process of confrontation and attrition which ultimately resulted in victory. In 1864, from the Wilderness to Second Cold Harbor, Federal losses exceeded 100,000 men. The men doggedly, determinedly pressed forward to victory. American pluck, dedication and valor won the day.

Dave

[David Koot]

The point I make is that even when the militias were needed, their right to bear arms was to be "well regulated".

By way of clarification, the Constitution refers to "a well-regulated militia." It does not mention about 'regulating' the people's right to bear arms.

As for assault rifles, at one point in my life, I was interested in becoming a mercenary. I owned an assault rifle, and practiced with it. (7.62 mm. NATO round) Personally, I do not agree with the legislation banning such weapons, although I would have no need for one now. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction of the usual crowd. And, of course, the ban makes it that much easier to bring about a police State. But, oh well. What's done is done.

Dave

[John317]

What you say is true. It never would have been won under General George McClellan. Grant was the best thing that happened to Lincoln. It took him 2 years to find his general. Lincoln's first choice was Robert E. Lee.

[Neil D]

What you say is true. It never would have been won under General George McClellan. Grant was the best thing that happened to Lincoln. It took him 2 years to find his general. Lincoln's first choice was Robert E. Lee.

You can debate your history and your culture all you want...the fact of the matter is that when it comes to guns, the part that kills the most people is the nut behind the triger....So, either we reduce the number of people, or reduce the number of guns, or sell exclusively water pistols to reduce the number of gun incidents...

[cardw]

Its true that people kill people, but I think the gun helps...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

the Constitution refers to "a well-regulated militia." It does not mention about 'regulating' the people's right to bear arms.

When the Constitution was ratified the "militia" and the "people" were one in the same. So regulating the "militia" would be regulating the "people".

[John317]

Quote:

the Constitution refers to "a well-regulated militia." It does not mention about 'regulating' the people's right to bear arms.

When the Constitution was ratified the "militia" and the "people" were one in the same. So regulating the "militia" would be regulating the "people".

Here's some interesting information that helps us to understand what the people of that time thought:

Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755-1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18th, 1789) the founders' definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of 'civil rulers' when he wrote:

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

[edit]