Quote:
Ouch. Gun-toting hick simpleton. You're such a tool. You should learn something about the "gun-toting hick simpletons" defeating the British in land battles. You should also learn about their Naval equivalents, often humbling the British Fleet [the most expansive and most powerful in the world at the time].
I never had a go America, it's Navy, it's history, or it's culture, I simply had a go at the absurd notion that America has never been invaded just because it's citizens are armed, and that us Europeans are somehow poorer for having (and wanting) gun-free societies, being peddled by a half-wit who treats any piece of information not as something to be evaluated on its own merits, but as something to be manipulated, simplified, and distilled down to a nice little absolute that it fits more easily with all the other absolutes (capitalism good/ socialism bad, conservatism good/ liberalism bad) in the world-view given to him by his society in return for his unquestioning loyalty and patriotism. I admit the 'hick simpletons' jibe was a little unnecessary, but since it was directed personally at 44_Cannon, and I am fairly certain it would stand up in any court, I am not going to apologise for it.
Quote:
Now if you want to talk about continuing freedom. I chalk that one up to the most powerful Navy in the world [capable of completely humbling whatever the European Union, Russia, or China has to offer these days].
Can't (and didn't, and don't have any reason to) argue with that.
Quote:
But certainly 80-90,000,000 private guns being owned has something to do with it. It also prevents government from getting too greedy, and stripping us of our Natural Rights.
Haha, and which rights, precisely, are you referring to that are unique to the USA?
Quote:
In these days, who would actually want to invade and capture the United Kingdom? I certainly find nothing worth going there for.
You'll have to try harder than that if you want to hurt my feelings, I'm no more likely to take offence at an insult directed at 'my' country than at an insult directed at people with the same colour of eyes as me. You see, I wasn't made to swear allegiance to a flag every day at school, and I am entirely free from the affliction of indoctrinated nationalism that seems so prevalent amongst your own countrymen.
Quote:
I don't think you get it. For island nations, and for nations whose only enemies are from afar, a Navy is all you really need to defend your nation. This is part of the reason why the U.S. Constitution did not want to permit a large standing Army during peacetime, and only wanted a Navy. It is the most efficient way of defending yourself. Plus, it already had an armed population equivalent to being much larger of most of the armies in the world.
Don't overlook 90,000,000 armed civilians. Oceans and Navies kept us safe, but arms have a hand in prevention as well.
Yeah, I think already answered that (since you already asked it, in almost exactly the same words)
Quote:
I would like to know this long list of countries whose populations have always been heavily armed and yet were oppressed. I'm not talking about having slightly high taxes, I'm talking real oppression here -- disregard for its citizenry's Natural Rights.
Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China... the greatest tyrannies in history have deprived their people of arms. Or you can try to argue that those travesties didn't happen.
Deprived people of arms, my hoop. They had gun laws, but that doesn't mean there weren't large numbers of weapons sloshing around anyway. How about South-East Asia? Israel? Libya (hell, take your pick in Africa)? Do you think all the guns floating around in Iraq just now were legally-held or army-issue before the war?
Those guns may have made life more difficult for invading armies afterwards, but they didn't stop any invasion, and they can't stop oppression so long as the government in question has more guns.
Quote:
[I suspect this is going to be one of those instances where somebody attacked America, and an American or two defended, and then the (usually European) aggressors use the counter-argument as a way of bolstering the notion that Americans like to ignorant insult Europe. I'd like to point out to the spectators that this isn't what's happening here. Here we have a case of some Europeans who want to attack America, and then try to use half assed logic and poor understanding of history to prove America's supposed inferiority to Europe.
Of course, they're also going to ignore that America was formed by Europeans, and has inherited European ideals -- and usually the best of them.]
I attribute my opinions only to me, not the country in which I happen to live and certainly not to an entire continent, and I, for one, didn't attack America, I attacked one utterly moronic opinion, that just so happened to have been expressed by an American.
The idea that the Europeans posting in the thread are somehow in cahoots with each other in a conspiracy to denigrate America is so spine-twistingly idiotic and small-minded that I can't barely even muster the contempt necessary to dismiss it properly.
For the record though, I have nothing against Americans, I just hate dickheads. The fact that they are so often synonymous is, I can assure you, a coincidence quite beyond my control, and I am always happy when I meet one of the many millions of exceptions who prove the rule.
Quote:
Ignorance of his own country's history.
England would not exist as it does today without the successful invasian of William the Conquerer. You remember, the Duke of Normandy?
Now continuing to look into England's past, we see Danish and Viking invasions, two Roman invasians, and D-Day (although this invasion was going in the opposite direction of the channel.)
Err.. since we were discussing gun laws I didn't see much point in referring to any history farther back than the issue itself, but hey, if it will make you happy, and in the spirit of Trans-Atlantic friendship, I am certainly willing to concede that the Roman invasion of Britian probably would have faltered if Boudica's army had been armed with assault rifles.
Quote:
Also, scotcher, I have to ask.. no, I have to insist. Do you think it is easy to invade and conquer the whole of mainland Europe, as opposed to some relatively tiny island nation? If so, why?
You can insist all you want dear, and I might even answer if you explain who has managed to invade and conquer the whole of Europe and what it has to do with gun-control legislation.
Not that I'm likely to be able to read it anyway, since I'm off abroad for a few weeks starting tomorrow (yay!), and I have a feeling the topic will have moved on by the time I get back.