|
jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 3:47:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
And then there are the people from outside the country who ignore those facts and keep screaming instead about how this only happens in the US, which makes pointing out the single, obvious, and supremely stupid fact that it could be fixed, and indeed never should have been put in place with this glaringly obvious overlooked problem.
You *keep on* fuming at your own straw man, JLF. I don't live in the USA. I have no intention to live there. A major part of me *does not care*. You simply don't grasp the fact that this is *not* about 'rabid libtard commie pinko anti gun dogma' from us in Europe, or anywhere else in the First World. The simple truth, all your straw men to one side, is that we all find your US gun laws, and gun culture, just baffling. It just *does not make sense* to us.
You should take that as I've said it. Seriously, don't get into fuming against socialism, or how us non-Americans have no understanding of "freedom"; how we love crims and hate honest upright folk - etc, etc, etc. It's all bilge. The truth is that *to the rest of the First World the USA's policy on guns, and its gun culture, is irrational*.
You cant understand the "gun" culture in the US, then the image and the history behind it should help.
If it doesnt how about this fact.
1) Initially stuff like axes, shovels etc were not allowed to be made in the colonies, they had to be imported from the mother country.
2) King George and the government decided to tax the shit out of the colonies and not give the colonists the right to protest or even speak against the acts before the laws were passed.
3) Crown troops were placed in homes of colonists without pay and were expected to be fed and cared for because they were crown troops.
4) Due process in the original colonies was something that just didnt happen. If you disagreed with something, the crown authorities could throw your ass in jail and forget you.
5) Resources, wood, crops etc were subject to being taken by the crown with no, repeat no, compensation. For example, during the colonial era, wood for the Royal Navy Ships came from the colonies, and after being cut, the royal agents could just come in, take the wood that some poor shit for brains colonist had just busted his ass to get, and not pay for it, and why, because the king needed, wanted or just for the hell of it.
In other words, the colonists got tired of getting fucked without a kiss, said fuck you and your royal horse that you rode in on, and after the red coats attempted to take the arms of the local militia (formed at the behest of the Royal governor) we decided to use those nice crosses on red coats where the two belts worn by British soldiers for target practice.
In other words, it was every day Americans tired of the bullshit that took up their arms against a tyrannical government and with some help from the French sent them packing.
After that, it became a major part of our culture, simply because it was private guns that won our Freedom, a hundred plus years before any other British colony figured out that, all things being equal, they werent.
We learn about the minute men and American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence etc at a very young age, and whether the American Liberals like it or not, that was because of private gun ownership. We learned why we were able to do it, how we did it, and how we had to fight the freaking British again in 1812 because they decided they could conscript American Sailors into the British Navy to fight the French.
The fact that in 1812, there really was not a standing American Army, it fell once more to private citizens with guns to fight for the freedoms of Americans both here and at sea.
So basically, it pretty much falls to the fact that for the first part of our history, it was private citizens who stood up and told the British Crown to take a flying leap at a rolling donut and get fucked.
Adding to that was the fact that as the settlers moved west, it became once more clear, that they were going to have to depend on themselves and their own guns for protection. Even after the law caught up with settlers, especially in the Southwest there were gangs of bandits who would dash across the border raiding ranches and towns, and the army was too few and too far in between to do much good.
That little fact is true even in the 20th century, i.e. Pancho Villa.
Now, if, in an effort to understand the culture behind gun ownership, folks would study history, they might have gotten a clue.
Then there are non american posters on these boards that insist that we are doing it wrong and should do it the way their country did it, thus the "holier than thou" attitude, completely forgetting that the under their laws, 90 percent of the population would not qualify for a pop gun.
Of course, one country has even outlawed the private ownership of swords.
You want to understand the culture, look at our history and what it was that the private ownership of guns gained the country as a whole.
As for brand names, "Peacemaker" was not a brand, but a model, manufactured by Colt and introduced as a fire arm for law enforcement. The poster who made the brand name statement could use a bit of a history lesson in capitalism, and marketing.
[image]local://upfiles/622970/8CE07A29754544D6B996C64272EE9B8C.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
