Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
Invaded by the Normans in 1066, yes. What of it?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
Invaded by the Normans in 1066, yes. What of it?
well... not too bad for cheese eating surrendermonkeys is it?
Yes...or no. I dunno.
History on both sides of the Atlantic has no shortages of instances illustrating "how a civilized country should conduct itself"- but failed to do so. I fail to see how the age of a nation-state has an influence on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Europe is certainly older, as far as modern societies are concerned but this hardly translated into an advantage in "being civilized" through the end of the 19th century. Just as Americans were going around exterminating and detaining our native populations, a great number of not-so pretty things went on in the European-controlled colonies. Least we forget the terrorism that went around disrupting the operation of govs & societies in the later half of the 19th century were a European problem far before becoming an American one. How many European leaders were assassinated by radicals before McKinley in those 3-4 last decades?
Since we are talking about gun confiscation followed by atrocities, there is an example from British history which has been mysteriously silent in this thread. I realize nobody ever cares about Africa, so perhaps the Second Boer War is more of a footnote than anything else... but here we do have an effective armed civilian resistance, followed by an aggressive British response attempting to pacify them through a combination of disarmament, resource destruction, and detention camps.
If you're referring to the 1066 invasion, I am not completely sure I agree with you calling the invasion force french. The Normans -at the time- were a separate ethnic group, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
If you consider an invasion to be a group of armed forces moving into another country that doesn't want them there, I suppose in a vague sense England was unsuccessfully invaded in WW1 & WW2 by German aviation. An invasion counts as an invasion even when the invading force is defeated. It was not an occupiation in any case.
Depending how you draw up boarders, England also had a lot of boarder clashes over the years hence the baron/noble families on the boarder with yet to be assimilated nations like Scotland. I don't know enough pre-enlightenment history to say if any of these were successful enough to get past these boarder fortifications, but if they did it could count as a small invasion as well.
I don't want to give the illusion that my view of European history is unfairly harsh, it is worth pointing out that in America in the 19th century civilian disarmament was a major factor in conquering the natives.
There is no coincidence that the reservation here system involved;
-disarmament
-In some cases losing dual-purpose technology (horses)
-Detainment
-Forced assimilation through federally funded re-education programs (i.e. Pratt's schools as a single example).
I stand corrected on my time line with the gun laws, so +1 to you on pointing it out. However, as for speaking about a continent full of tyrants, invasions, and other problems, I think you're trying to dodge that bullet with your response. From your history of Monarchs, to the Nazi's, and countless other regimes, Europe has a nasty track record. People would do well not to forget it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Yes cars are used for transportation, a legitimate purpose. However, they can be misused by drunks and other reckless people. Firearms have legitimate uses, the most important being self-defense.
As for Europe having more experience in the affairs of running a society this is true. What I think you (and many other Europeans) need to acknowledge is that the U.S. is a distinctly different nation in many respects. Many of the people that have come here over the centuries have done so to get away from the more intrusive ways and traditions of Europe.
For me it is not a matter of thinking that there is nothing to learn from Europe. I just seem to have a different perspective than you and many others. I believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. To do this effectively, it requires as little government interference as possible.
All in all, I agree and have nothing at the moment to add to the historical observations made here. I do have a quibble:
Quote:
Firearms have legitimate uses, the most important being self-defense.
I agree that firearms have legitimate uses, and when they are in fact used for self-defense that is a use of ultimate importance. However, that does not make it a legitimate reason for acquiring a firearm in the first place. Buying a firearm solely for self-defense is a bit like getting a leopard in case a mouse wanders into your apartment. You have to weigh the danger it presents to you, your family and your friends against the probability that you will actually use it to successfully defend the same. The danger of having a gun rises with each child that habituates your home. It rises if you or anyone in your family has anger issues, substance abuse issues, or just even just occasionally drinks too much. The danger rises if you’re going to keep the weapon loaded and unlocked. The danger rises if there are family members who are not versed in the uses, rules, practices and dangers of using a gun. These dangers must be weighed against the likelihood that you will ever need to use it in self-defense. This likelihood will be higher in some neighborhoods and lower in others. It can be high for your specific family if you have any known and dangerous enemies. Most people don’t have assassins seeking to kill them, and most people live in neighborhoods that are safe enough to mitigate against having a gun for the sole purpose of self-defense.
There are other legitimate reasons for acquiring a gun that can tip the scales in favor of ownership. These are the benefits of gun ownership that sportsman and collectors enjoy. So if your own enjoyment (or the enjoyment of others in your family) is such that it outweighs the dangers to your family, you may have a justifiable reason to own firearms.
Yea you're right that there are other concerns involved; however, my stance is simply that at the end of the day it should left to the individual to weigh those concerns and benefits.
I can agree with that modulo a licensing program to insure owners are appropriately educated. [Edit: ...and perhaps a restriction on the type of firearm].Quote:
Yea you're right that there are other concerns involved; however, my stance is simply that at the end of the day it should left to the individual to weigh those concerns and benefits.
i guess youre american so you might not know this but for europeans (the english and germans especially) the french are a bit of a joke when it comes to war... sort of like canada but with much much better foodQuote:
Originally Posted by SarahG