what the hell is ROHS

and it

illegal (

other

different ideas

And you can't see anything outside of your tiny mind.

Well, that's neuter gender, but if your militia are primarily men, then it'd be "militius', and you know what that sounds like. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

...

Oh, we understand very well how it works in other countries. The king says, "surrender your arms" and you bow down, kiss his feet, and comply.

Americans aren't like that. Our leaders lead by the consent of the governed. (well, they're supposed to. These days, it seems they're led by the consent of the lobbyists and PACs, but that's a different topic).

In any case, America was created to be The Land of the Free, where there are no kings or princes or any royalty at all.

The only ones who are acting like royalty are the very rich, and the celebs, and they got their money by selling something that people wanted.

Ach, I wax poetical again - I fear I must end this post now.

Thanks! Rich

That's been the attitude of the crusaders for millennia.

When are people going to figure out that that's wrong?

Thanks, Rich

Exactly. You've got a cop for every citizen^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsubject, watching them to make sure they don't misbehave. But you guys don't mind, because everybody loves marching in lockstep with the king's cadence.

Some years ago, I met a lady who had grown up in the middle of WWII Germany. She remembered before the war: "You didn't have to lock your door." They were all safe and secure, except if you had the audacity to be Jewish, or anything else that the chancellor didn't approve of, and you were history.

We wrote the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights to prevent just that sort of thing.

It does really hurt me to see how few Americans still embrace her ideals, however.

Sigh, Rich

guns?

culture and it

illegal (

other

guns.

different ideas

American I

You're a sad man Mr Terrell.

It seems to be you who's incapable of understanding anything you're not familiar with.

I could understand your pov if you were simply a troll but I suspect you sincerely believe that only those things you already know and understand are worthwhile.

Graham

message

As it would be since it's an inanimate object. As in an arny doesn't have a gender either.

Ppffttt ! LOL.

Graham

message

As it would be since it's an inanimate object. As in an arny doesn't have a gender either.

Ppffttt ! LOL.

Graham

Actually it hasn't worked that way for a long, long time.

Blair is led by Bush it seems.

Yeah right ! The free to be shot in the street maybe ? ;~)

Strange that Americans seem more fascinated by our Royalty than we are then !

The 'new royalty' as they're sometimes referred to.

No matter. Good fun anyway !

Graham

You do realise that this kind of pro-gun thinking is exclusive to the USA I hope ? The country that has more gun deaths than anywhere else btw.

Graham

guns.

Eh ? You have to be kidding ! Everyone seems to think there aren't *enough* cops here.

Get real Rich !

Your point was ? I tried to infer one but failed.

Well.... the Magna Carta predates that by rather a lot. Habeas Corpus and all that stuff.

It seems to be a bit effed up over there sadly.

Graham

guns?

culture and it

guns illegal (

differently in other

run

guns.

different ideas

American I

familiar with.

sincerely believe

You really are obsessed with the idea that your own little world is the only worthwhile one.

I feel quite sorry for you actually.

Graham

worthwhile one.

Don't bother. My world is a lot larger than that tiny island that you're imprisoned on. You should just feel sorry for yourself. God knows that you've plenty of reason to do so.

Guns to protect yourselves against criminals is one thing, but this concept of an armed populace for protection against the state seems a bit old-fashioned in the modern western world.

In Europe, we have this idea called "democracy". We vote for our governments, and to a fair extent they try to run the place for the good of the majority of the people. They don't always get it right (bringing us back to the topic of ROHS...), but for the most part, people are happy to cooperate with the authorities because they are there for the benefit of everyone.

If you live in a dictatorship, or some other system where the general populace are oppressed by the rulers (such as USA *before* their independence), then it makes sense to have an armed populace. It can also make sense if there is no better way to prevent the emergence of a dictatorship from your democracy - that's why every European country (except the UK, but the Queen's veto provides an alternative) has a constitution that prevents the formation of a dictatorship.

So having an armed populace is important if it is possible for unelected or unrepresentative parties to gain power, and they can rule without regard of the good of people, changing laws or ignoring them as they see fit, and ignoring the people's rights under their constitution, while gradually moving the balance of power towards a one-party state or dictatorship.

Actually, I'm beginning to see your point...

Well, actually, there's another reason, that might be a little too deep for some people - when you look at "well-regulated militia", you could interpret "well-regulated" to mean both "well-trained" and "not likely to pull off a coup willy-nilly"; and "militia", if words still mean the same thing that they used to, means "an armed citizenry who defend their homeland from invaders".

So, you see another subtlety here that's apparently lost on a great many people: If the population is well-armed, then they themselves will protect their own land from foreign invaders, thereby obviating the need for a trillion-dollar standing military.

Since the US has never had a foreign invader, I guess that concept is kind of lost - the sheeple seem to be convinced that attacking people half-way across the world is some kind of "defense".

Feh. Rich

I don't know anyone who *likes* paying taxes but government revenue has to come from somewhere. In this case it wisely discourages inefficient vehicles.

Graham

That's certainly appropriate for a country like Iraq or Lebanon, but doesn't really match today's USA (your "militia" is far from being "well-regulated", in any sense of the word, and as you say, foreign invasions are not that common).

Yes, and in each of these cases, who was it who actually rose to the defense of America?

Citizens, of course!

So far, everyone seems to have missed my point that, to a sane person, "invading Afghanistan" and "invading Iraq" are _not_ "defending American soil from foreign invaders".

Call off the crusades, and the terrorists might lighten up, except maybe against their genetic enemies, which the US isn't supposed to be.

And the terrorist attacks that _have_ occurred are not an act of war - where/s the declaration? - they are merely terribly destructive crimes. The appropriate response to the 9/11 bombing would have been a police investigation, hopefully with international police cooperation, to arrest and prosecute whatever perps are still alive.

But invade a whole country, that has been shown to have had nothing to do with it?

That's just wrong, and prima facie evidence that the current US regime are criminally insane.

Yeah, so what? I don't use Marriott anyway, so let them restrict their patronage like any other private business.

Remember? In the US, you're allowed to practice the religion of your choice - you are allowed to be an antismokerist anywhere people are allowed to get together and worship the dogma of their choice.

Thanks anyway, Rich

"Regulated" meant equipped with militarily useful weapons.