Please to explain for the hard of understanding...

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Incidentally: I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to turn this into an America-v-Britain thing. I wasn't insulting to America or Americans in the discussion about guns. I was interested in a seemingly distinct cultural difference. One that is apparently distinct between different parts of America as much as it is distinct between our two nations. ...

... But as your intent was clearly to insult, I'll take it as one. And again ask the question: why be insulting?

People are products of their environments and their history. Part of our history is sending over thousands of basic firearms, rifles and handguns, for Britain's Home Guard defense against potential invasion by Germany during WWII. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun ... ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition. Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II.

I've met British and French military personnel, those who've seen how fragile social stability can be up close and personal, who were embarrassed by their civilian populations' apathy in this regard today and how they had resigned themselves to it. I felt sorry for them. That's what I think of when someone espouses political action as the only proper course; so, they themselves will never be considered responsible for countering violence with return violence, not on their own streets, not even in their own homes. That's someone else's job. Unfortunately, the divisions here are the result of too many people, well kept insulated by politicians in government, heading them in that direction too.

I find that aspect of you (collectively*) loathsome. Many in your own military find you* loathsome. Many in our military find people like you* here, loathsome. More and more civilians here now are finding people like you* loathsome; because, more of them are veterans now ... people who have seen first hand that price of freedom is not only eternal vigilance; but, that this price can't always be met by contributing to political action alone.

To hold the position that a civilian population shouldn't be armed; because, they can't win is to hold the position that they shouldn't even try after all hope is lost politically. We don't ascribe to that. That's why our culture's declaration of independence from your culture's includes within its specified inalienable rights the "pursuit" of happiness. To hold the position that the odds against all hope being lost politically is so great the civilian population shouldn't be armed is to hold the position that the government won't impose martial law on the citizenry. The government just did that in Ferguson, Missouri. As part of the front end analysis, we'll do our own threat analysis for both internal and external threats (we saw how you got caught with your pants down during WWII and we learned, thank you).

I was going to do a Jeff Foxworthy parody on You might be a redneck if , something like the one Grav posted, titled You might be loathsome if; but I didn't want to hurt your feelings. No insult intended. Your welcome.