We've been here before

[DaveP]

Lets just blame the British for all this mess.  If they hadn't asked the colonies to contribute to their own defence, none of this would have happened.  No rebellion, no attempt to put it down, no subsequent distrust of government and no second amendment, no country awash with guns.

Having said that, we had a better way of abolishing the slave trade, after many attempts it was an act of parliament in 1829, so it was done through democracy.  From here it looks like most of America's divisions go back to your civil war, the continued use of the confederate flag is proof of that.  There is obviously still a deep seated resentment in the southern population.  If you had not had the war then maybe the slave owners might have given in through shame in the 20th century, who knows?

Being a Christian myself, I am well aware of the Bible talking about the sons of Ham and how that was used as a justification for slavery, conveniently forgetting about all the teaching on loving thy neighbour.  The creationists don't help either because we now know through genetics that all of our ancestors were black coming out of Africa 250,000 years ago.  But if you believe the  17th cent. Irish  Bishop Ussher that the world is only 6000 years old then  you can't believe we were all black once either.  It is a well known fact that as black people go farther north they lose their colour, there is an enormous difference in colour between Northern African Americans and the Africans in Equatorial Africa.  It all depends on how big your God or your mind is I guess.  If you think of Him physically making a man out of dust then go for the 6000 year option,  if you think of Him saying let there be light in a big bang and the watching man develop (when you live outside of time, time is not an issue) then go for evolution.

I think this debate has been very illuminating for this European, it has helped me understand a little better what in many ways seems very foreign despite our shared European ancestry.
best
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Lets just blame the British for all this mess.  If they hadn't asked the colonies to contribute to their own defence, none of this would have happened.  No rebellion, no attempt to put it down, no subsequent distrust of government and no second amendment, no country awash with guns.

;D ;D  yeah it's that simple. (not)

Having said that, we had a better way of abolishing the slave trade, after many attempts it was an act of parliament in 1829, so it was done through democracy.  From here it looks like most of America's divisions go back to your civil war, the continued use of the confederate flag is proof of that.  There is obviously still a deep seated resentment in the southern population.  If you had not had the war then maybe the slave owners might have given in through shame in the 20th century, who knows?

I enjoy reading history, but don't find it much of an excuse for modern behavior. That said slaves are still being used in numerous regions of the world.. While the modern definition of slavery has expanded somewhat they include millions of souls still. This would be a real problem worth fixing .

Being a Christian myself, I am well aware of the Bible talking about the sons of Ham and how that was used as a justification for slavery, conveniently forgetting about all the teaching on loving thy neighbour.  The creationists don't help either because we now know through genetics that all of our ancestors were black coming out of Africa 250,000 years ago.  But if you believe the  17th cent. Irish  Bishop Ussher that the world is only 6000 years old then  you can't believe we were all black once either.  It is a well known fact that as black people go farther north they lose their colour, there is an enormous difference in colour between Northern African Americans and the Africans in Equatorial Africa.  It all depends on how big your God or your mind is I guess.  If you think of Him physically making a man out of dust then go for the 6000 year option,  if you think of Him saying let there be light in a big bang and the watching man develop (when you live outside of time, time is not an issue) then go for evolution.

I think this debate has been very illuminating for this European, it has helped me understand a little better what in many ways seems very foreign despite our shared European ancestry.
best
DaveP

[quote author=serenty prayer]
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
[/quote]

Happy Sunday all...

JR

PS: After several hours of yard work in the MS sun yesterday I have a redneck.  8)

 

[DaveP]

That's OK as long as its only skin deep
best
DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Obama is black.  He is African American.  It doesn't matter if he wasn't raised in 'the hood' that's not what makes someone black.

Well, just to voice my unimportant opinion yet again; race is just social convention.

It's illogical though. There is no biological reason for dividing people into races in the same way we use taxonomy on other species. And Obama is half-white half-black, so it's sort of curious and symptomatic that he's referred to as "black" repeatedly, rather than "white".

I have an opinion about why that might be.

 

[JohnRoberts]

deleted.. 

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the topic.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the topic.

Agreed... not on the same scale, but just another example of people not taking personal responsibility for their behavior.

I'll delete it to keep this thread pure  ;D

JR

 

[DaveP]

Mat,

It probably doesn't but it gives a very good picture of American life to someone like me who doesn't know the country very well.

It must have been that red neck that scared him off, it makes perfect sense to me 8)

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Mat,

It probably doesn't but it gives a very good picture of American life to someone like me who doesn't know the country very well.

It must have been that red neck that scared him off, it makes perfect sense to me 8)

DaveP

This thread smells funny.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Mat,

It probably doesn't but it gives a very good picture of American life to someone like me who doesn't know the country very well.

It must have been that red neck that scared him off, it makes perfect sense to me 8)

DaveP

This thread smells funny.

he who smelt it dealt it....

JR

 

[jasonallenh]

The issue isn't the availability of guns, it's the means by which people are getting them in the first place. I grew up in the south, shot targets with my dad, and I am not a crazy person. I am not a threat to anyone. It's perfectly reasonable to think that we can reduce gun violence without taking guns away.

HOWEVER.......

If you have to take a test and meet basic health requirements to have a driver's license, then it isn't unreasonable to  assume the same for guns. Deadly weapons are not meant for everyone. Israeli citizens have to have a mental health screen and take a test that includes target shooting.... to prove they are both mentally and physically capable of responsible ownership of a weapon. There's NO REASON why those of us in the US couldn't be held to such a standard. It isn't a "loss of freedom," it's a way to ensure the freedom we have isn't abused.

BTW, my good friend chimed in that Glock is a horrific place to work. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am encouraged by the grace and dignity of the victims and citizens of Charleston SC in response to the tragedy. The politicians and offense industry could learn from them.

JR

 

[pucho812]

I think the politicians and those who make their money from adding fuel to the fire had the wind taken out of their sails when instead of riots, etc they behaved with civility. Yes the politicians and  the  offense industry could learn from them.

 

[Matt Nolan]

At the risk of starting a riot...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america

I found this article quite interesting. I see a lot of what is spoken about here happening in Britain as times goes on.

 

[DaveP]

Yes I agree with that, dumbing down they call it.

I was speaking to a very bright 13 year old at the weekend about the origins of English and I started with the battle of Hastings, blank look, tried Norman invasion, same, 1066 I tried, hadn't a clue.  It wasn't his fault, he had just never been taught it at school.

TV programme presenters in documentaries now speak to us as in a manner I would use with children or the mentally sub-normal.

I just switch off.

best
DaveP

 

[Krcwell]

The issue isn't the availability of guns, it's the means by which people are getting them in the first place. I grew up in the south, shot targets with my dad, and I am not a crazy person. I am not a threat to anyone. It's perfectly reasonable to think that we can reduce gun violence without taking guns away.

HOWEVER.......

If you have to take a test and meet basic health requirements to have a driver's license, then it isn't unreasonable to  assume the same for guns. Deadly weapons are not meant for everyone. Israeli citizens have to have a mental health screen and take a test that includes target shooting.... to prove they are both mentally and physically capable of responsible ownership of a weapon. There's NO REASON why those of us in the US couldn't be held to such a standard. It isn't a "loss of freedom," it's a way to ensure the freedom we have isn't abused.

BTW, my good friend chimed in that Glock is a horrific place to work. 

I personally am not that willing to place arbitrary restrictions on constitutionally protected rights. In my opinion, the US government has earned the level of trust I place in it to make rational decisions for the good of the people.

History has proven time and again the corruptibility of man when they have unchecked power. The 2nd amendment is a necessary power of the people to provide that check, thus ensuring a failsafe checks and balances if all other enumerated rights in the constitution fail. In this light, arbitrary restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms have the same propensity for corruption as any other power.

I find it fascinating that one of the core debates regarding the Bill of Rights at the time was whether declaring certain rights for the people would in some way insinuate that any other rights not specifically mentioned would be subject to legislation. The US constitution specifically states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are assigned to the people. Given how poorly our constitution has been followed by the US government, I'm glad they enumerated the most important in the Bill of Rights. I continue to be amazed at the foresight and intelligence of the American founding fathers.

 

[emrr]

This is an interesting quote I found on the Beeb:

Despite being a very mixed-race country, Levine says that the killings in Charleston are being seen in Brazil as more of a gun safety issue than a racial issue.
"When they see an event like what happened in South Carolina last week, they wonder if it's really so much better in the United States, safety-wise."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33245800

 

[mattiasNYC]

I personally am not that willing to place arbitrary restrictions on constitutionally protected rights. In my opinion, the US government has earned the level of trust I place in it to make rational decisions for the good of the people.

History has proven time and again the corruptibility of man when they have unchecked power. The 2nd amendment is a necessary power of the people to provide that check, thus ensuring a failsafe checks and balances if all other enumerated rights in the constitution fail. In this light, arbitrary restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms have the same propensity for corruption as any other power.

I find it fascinating that one of the core debates regarding the Bill of Rights at the time was whether declaring certain rights for the people would in some way insinuate that any other rights not specifically mentioned would be subject to legislation. The US constitution specifically states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are assigned to the people. Given how poorly our constitution has been followed by the US government, I'm glad they enumerated the most important in the Bill of Rights. I continue to be amazed at the foresight and intelligence of the American founding fathers.

See, I would agree with the right of people to have the means to protect themselves against the government, provided they'd actually be capable of discerning when that would be.

Go back to the 1970's-80's and look at dystopian sci-fi for example, and look at how governments that are overreaching are characterized, practically speaking. And then look at what the US government decided it could do; take any human of any nationality anywhere on the planet and either incarcerate indefinitely or execute - either without trial..... ok people say, but that's just terrorists... well, it also gave itself the right to not only spy on foreign heads of state and foreign corporations, but look at the bank and library records of US residents, log their phone calls, log their emails etc... "still just about terrorists" people say.

So, just who are these people that would finally "have enough" and rise up against an oppressive government, and at just what point would that be? Because so far it seems the masses have been voting for candidates that have perpetuated this crap (regardless of party affiliation) rather than voting for those who oppose it. And this line of taking away liberties while strengthening government power is a terrible slippery slope.

So I'd actually argue that, ironically, the more educated the masses the more likely they are to stop a government from overreaching and thus they'd be deserving of weapons which they'd likely not use because they'd already stopped the government, whereas in the US the uneducated masses are too incapable of recognizing when they'd use the weapons in the first place while voting people into power that would lead them to when they should use them which is why they shouldn't have them (given the statistics of gun violence).

 

[DaveP]

This is what I don't understand about America.  What is this big deal about protecting yourselves from the government?  I have never heard about any other modern nation talk about protecting itself against its government.

What would you do, fight your own armed services?  Are you seriously thinking that a variety of handguns, rifles and maybe  a few automatic weapons would be any use against your army or the national guard??  If you think you could prevail against them, then what chance do you think your armed services would have against the Russians, Chinese or IS?

The only thing I can think of is that you would hope your army would refuse to fight you and that would cause the government to resign, but has anyone really thought this through?  How did this concept ever gain traction?  Is it a legacy from the civil war?

best
DaveP

 

[Matt Nolan]

How did this concept ever gain traction?  Is it a legacy from the civil war?

It is from the time of muskets and canons. Only in this context can it make any sense.