Guns Because

[Blind groper]

George Washington also raved on about liberty to the people. And he owned slaves.

Thus, he was a hypocritical asshole who told lies.

[aspire1670]

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington

LOL at the bogus quote.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

Better, don'tcha' think?

That last part is a mistake. You don't think.

If by better you mean more bogus then youre right, you don't think.

[Gallstones]

George Washington also raved on about liberty to the people. And he owned slaves.

Thus, he was a hypocritical asshole who told lies.

And Abraham Lincoln called them niggers.

[Blind groper]

And Abraham Lincoln called them niggers.

Irrelevant.

The point I am making is that quoting Washington as some sort of icon of liberty is crap. He did not believe in liberty except for himself and his peers. Certainly not for any human whose skin might be a little more pigmented.

[JimC]

I don't want access to guns reduced.
So no either or intended.

For your own selfish reasons.

I'm getting an inkling that perhaps you think selfish is a bad thing?

It could well be if the desire for gun ownership overrides the prevention of the massacre of children.

We can't prevent violence. That is a chidlish woo wishing.

We can certainly take decisions as a community which will reduce it; preventing violence does not mean preventing all violence...

[Seabass]

And Abraham Lincoln called them niggers.

Irrelevant.

[Coito ergo sum]

And Abraham Lincoln called them niggers.

Irrelevant.

The point I am making is that quoting Washington as some sort of icon of liberty is crap. He did not believe in liberty except for himself and his peers. Certainly not for any human whose skin might be a little more pigmented.

Of course. He was a man of his times, but still ahead of his time. What the Americans were doing in the late 1700s was a damn sight better than the rest of the world. There were very few people in the world in the 1780s who thought Africans were equal to white Europeans -- the notion would have brought laughter if you even brought it up -- such equality was considered demonstrably false.

And, of course, the same went for women. The equality and liberty referenced in the colonial America was for white males, the same as in the French revolution. In most of the rest of the world, however, even white males were considered "subjects" and not "citizens," and they were the property of the crown in god-ordained monarchies.

As bad as it was back then, it was an improvement over what was left behind in Yerup.

[Jason]

[MrJonno]

A savage that acts better than his fellow savages is an improvement but still a savage and not worthy of worship or even respect by people in modern times. Someone who owns slaves but treats them better than other slave owners should still be considered to be evil

[Blind groper]

it was an improvement over what was left behind in Yerup.

That is very debatable.

Britain, for example, rejected slavery well before the USA did. You could make a good case for Britain being more 'civilised' than the US. Not only that, but the worst atrocities against the natives of North American occurred after the British rule ended. It would appear that those gun lovin' and gun totin' Americans were cruel, greedy, and barbaric compared to the more civilised British.

[MrJonno]

Countries that have been stable and at peace have generally morally evolved at roughly the same rate.

Increase in suffrage, gay rights,worker protection, women rights in generally have roughly (ie within 10-20 years) at about the same time. One one country sees something that is a good idea its going to be copied pretty quickly.

Does anyone seriously think there will anywhere in the western world where gay marriage won't be legal in 10 years, 20 at most

[Robert_S]

it was an improvement over what was left behind in Yerup.

That is very debatable.

Britain, for example, rejected slavery well before the USA did. You could make a good case for Britain being more 'civilised' than the US. Not only that, but the worst atrocities against the natives of North American occurred after the British rule ended. It would appear that those gun lovin' and gun totin' Americans were cruel, greedy, and barbaric compared to the more civilised British.

We should have pressed a few Brittish and French sailors to fight for the Union side in the civil war.

[Gallstones]

it was an improvement over what was left behind in Yerup.

That is very debatable.

Britain, for example, rejected slavery well before the USA did. You could make a good case for Britain being more 'civilised' than the US. Not only that, but the worst atrocities against the natives of North American occurred after the British rule ended. It would appear that those gun lovin' and gun totin' Americans were cruel, greedy, and barbaric compared to the more civilised British.

One could try, but they'd be laughed at.
How did you Brits treat your Indians?

When was the magic dividing line across which Americans became a people unlike the British?

Wasn't it Brit colonists who owed their survival in the New World to Tisquantum and his people, and wasn't it Brits who kidnapped him and made him a slave?

[Gallstones]

it was an improvement over what was left behind in Yerup.

That is very debatable.

Britain, for example, rejected slavery well before the USA did. You could make a good case for Britain being more 'civilised' than the US. Not only that, but the worst atrocities against the natives of North American occurred after the British rule ended. It would appear that those gun lovin' and gun totin' Americans were cruel, greedy, and barbaric compared to the more civilised British.

We should have pressed a few Brittish and French sailors to fight for the Union side in the civil war.

Considering how much more civilized they are, you'd think even back then they'd have been all over just such an opportunity.

[Blind groper]

No nation was truly civilised in the mid to late 18th century. Not by today's standards, anyway. The British were pretty barbaric also, but not as much as the American colonists.

The British were pretty good soldiers though, due to the high standard (for the time) of military training. The only reason the American colonists got the upper hand was the entry into the war of France, Spain and Holland on the American side. So the poor old Brits were fighting against four foes - not one.