Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:14:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1080 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I don't know why we go around and around with this issue. The U.S. is not
> Europe. The U.S. is not the U.K. Everyone else can offer their silly
> opinions and then shut the hell up. If you don't live here, you don't
> understand our problems or our needs. For those of you "in country" that
> want to complain of our rights concerning arms, first tell me how you intend
> to modify perception of something so fundamental that it allowed for the
> formation of this country in the first place? We would have stayed under
> the thumb of George III except for a violent rebellion. Is it everyone's
> assertion that such a need will NEVER arise again?
Sorry, gotta nitpick:
Canada and Australia had no violent rebellions against British rule,
yet both became de facto independent by roughly 1900. [1] A failure
to revolt against British rule would not have kept us under anyone's
thumb, it merely would have changed the way that squeaking-out took
place and the nature of our relationship with Great Britain between
1775 and 1902 (the year of Hay-Pauncefote, the Anglo-American rapproche-
ment treaty). The Revolution's upper-class proponents were much more
self-interested--not in matters of liberty so much as economy.
The tax burden on the Colonies was actually far less than the burden
upon anyone in England, and some of the same people who chafed under
it ended up chafing under *any* central authority, even the US once
the deed was done.
I'm happy to hear what people outside the US say and prescribe, as
long as it's not dictatorial or given as evidence why the USA is an
evil awful terrible place and their homes are Utopias. But I'm with
Richard in that the US isn't the UK, it's not Europe, and it's not
even Canada (though that would be closest, really)--so the same
tricks just won't work. Now, if only we could get the US Department
of State to realize that the opposite is true--that the American Way
is not the only way--more often, and we'll really be on to something!
:)
best
LFB
[1] You can argue that it wasn't "real" independence, given their
relationships with the UK, but I'd reply that South Africa offers
an antagonistic example--they were effectively independent by 1910,
and only careful coalition-building kept them from declaring for
the Central Powers in 1914 and the Axis in 1939.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, getting back to the main issue of this subthread... ...check out: (URL) looks like the government printing office to me, and should be reasonably authoritative. In "Miller" the court seems to be dancing around questions of what kinds of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
