Hamas fires rockets defending themselves from mean ciivilians and vicious reporters

[Warthogg]

Roaring Mouse:

The Japanese surrendered because they knew the war was lost; that the US could destroy entire cities at will.

More likely the Japanese surrendered when the Soviet Union entered the war and the Soviet armies ran through the Japanese armies in Manchuria in maybe two weeks.

Hirohito made a final effort to negotiate with Stalin to keep the Soviets out of the war with Japan. That effort failed and, after being assured the emperor could remain in place, Japan surrendered.

More were killed in the March 1945 fire bombings of Tokyo than in either nuclear blast and the Japanese leaders didn't care. I do not believe those leaders cared about the loses in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

What Japan really feared was partioning. There was no question had the war continued Japan would have been partioned just as Germany and the Soviets would have almost certainly got the north major island of Hokkaido.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As 'D' day was the letter used to denote the invasion of France, 'X' day was the designator for the invasion of Japan.

We had a really neat invasion plan. We were gonna drop a dozen or so nukes blasting a path for our soldiers and Marines and, of course including the forces of our allies. Radiation anyone ??


Wart

[Krupski]

As 'D' day was the letter used to denote the invasion of France, 'X' day was the designator for the invasion of Japan.

Actually, "D" day is the scheduled day of a military operation and "H" hour is the exact time it starts.

Everyone calls the invasion of Normandy "D Day" but that was only one of countless "D days".

[weevil]

You are taking what I said out of context; if your enemy had actually gotten to the point of invasion, it is highly probably that they would only have done so through defeating your military. On this basis, an armed and poorly trained (if trained at all) civil population would constitute an irritation. With today's weaponry, you would never be invaded; nuclear weapons, and the threat of their use, would prevent that from occurring. Like ourselves, you would rather used nukes than submit to an enemy. Therefore, on that basis, an armed civil population is probably an irrelevance.

In terms of the slaughter, yes, one of the reasons why Japan was nuked was because (nearly 70 years ago) of the fear that every fanatical-Emperor loving Japanese would attack invading US civilians and the losses to US forces would have been hideous. That was then, it is difficult to see that this scenario would occur today.

Well once again this is just a matter of speculation and opinion and for a variety of reasons we disagree and I highly doubt anything either of us says will change the other's opinion.

So on this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I like the idea of an armed populace, you don't.

I forget the source, but it was based on median rather than mean income; calculations of the mean are distorted by extremes at either end of the scale (you have far more millionaires than the UK or EU but also far more people who live on a comparatively small income).

In terms of measuring happiness,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe
/denmark-is-the-worlds-happiest-country--official-410075.html
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/nor...countries.html

Thats just a couple. I recall a UN report putting Norway as No.1 in terms of happiness. I also recall a UN report placing the USA and UK as bottom of a list of 25 industrialised nations in terms of children's happiness. Depressing stuff.

I wish you lot with get over your obsession with the BBC: (1) it is one of 300 TV channels we receive (2) by and large it isn't very good (3) most of us (myself included) watch far more US made TV than British TV (4) when I do watch British TV, it tends to be ITV or Channel 4. The BBC isn't the voice of Britain, anymore than Fox News is the voice of the US.

Ooookay.......

Both of your sources say the that people in the US are wealthier and happier than people in the UK.

So how do you explain this statement:

And yet, the average Britain is wealthier than the average American. Also, the happiest nations are those with large Governments and excellent public services, where the gap between rich and poor is relatively small. Strange that.

So other than being mislead by your country's propaganda how do you explain this discrepancy???

You are allowed to carry a loaded firearm on any land where you have the landowner's consent; you cannot do so in a public place.

So those shotgun owners in Whitehaven could not use their guns to stop the maniac since they were locked up at home.

Like I said it doesn't do any good to own a gun if you can't carry it and use it when it's needed.

The current push for concealed carry that has taken place and passed in many US states can be traced back to Suzanna Hupp a lady who watched a maniac shoot her parents to death in front of her at a Luby's restraunt. Her greatest regret was that she obeyed the law and left her gun in her car. Her hardwork was instruemental in getting the Texas legislature to pass the law for granting shall issue permits for concealed weapons.

Research has shown that if the Police up the level of force they use at demonstrations, the demonstrators become more violent and start bring weapons with them in order to counter the likely police response. You have high levels of gun ownership, as does Canada, Germany and Switzerland; Canada, Germany and Switzerland have far lower crime rates than the US.

Well as I stated and I also noticed was mentioned in one of your links the US has much more diverse population than those countries.

" Being small helps too. Big countries have so many disparate groups (ethnic, geographic, civic) vying against each other that it's hard for true social cohesion and trust to emerge, and harder to maintain high levels of safety. Among countries with populations of more than 150 million, the United States ranks highest, at No. 10. "

So according to the link you provided the US ranks highest amongst large diverse nations when it comes to "happiness" and having a higher crime rate is to be expected for large nations with diverse populations.

It also ranks higher than your small, less diverse, low level of gun ownership, nation.


Good links thanks for the info!

Had Hitler nuked London, we probably would have surrendered - if he had nuked New York (and maybe a few other large cities given the size of the US and your population), you probably would have surrendered to. The Japanese surrendered because they knew the war was lost; that the US could destroy entire cities at will.

Well you seem to forget that we had already destroyed entire cities by fire-bombing them, just as the RAF had done to Dresden. In fact Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been left virtually untouched by American bombers and their citizens condsidered themselves "lucky", at least until the A-bombs dropped.

The US had left these cities untouched rather than destroy them like the rest of Japan's cities so they could see the effect of atomic bombs on a city and also hopefully shock the Japanese into surrendering.

Using an A-bomb on one of the cities that had already been destroyed by fire bombs probably would not have had the same effect on the Japanese leadership.

Plus as has been mentioned the Japs were looking for a good excuse to surrender to the US before the Soviets entered the fight. Much the same as it's been claimed German forces didn't put up as much of a fight against the British and US forces as they did the Soviets.

While the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were terrrible I still don't think they would have the same effect if used today on a hostile and determined nation.

Aside from Estate Agents (Realtors), Politicians and Journalists are the least trusted and most disliked "professions" going. A constitution should serve the people; not vice versa. Yes, there are dangers in having an uncodified and evolving constitution, but there are many strengths, not least that the constitution can reflect society, its values and respond to new threats and challenges. In terms of your constitution, can I ask whether you voted to allow abortion? Did you vote to suspend capital punishment, or reinstate it? Was it not the Courts would decided in light of their understanding of a 200 year old document?

Well there is nothing in the Constitution specifically dealing with abortion, so this is a matter for the legislature and judicial systems to work out.

Now capital punishment is a sticky issue because of the 8th amendment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As you mentioned the courts have flip-flopped back and forth on this issue.

But that is the job of the courts to decide whether the laws that our current legistatures pass are consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Is capital punishment "cruel and unusual punishment" or not?

The Constitution doesn't specifically spell out whether it is or not that's why we have courts and judges to decide.

These are all things that can decided within the frame work of our Constitution without making any changes to it.

The framework of our Constitution is what gives us those judges and courts that make those decisions on abortion and capital punishment and gives them their power to rule on these decisions. The judicial system that decides these "daily life" cases is one of the branches of govt spelled out in our Constitution. They are not somehow in opposition to it as you seem to think but rather a part of it. It is the job of the courts to make these decisions based on the laws laid down in the Constitution rather than letting them be decided by the whims of the majority or whatever fad is politically popular at the moment.

What exactly is it that has changed so much about humanity and the basic human rights all free men expect in the past 200 years that would somehow render our Constitution obsolete?


I would rather have my rights protected by a strong Constitution that is the law of the land, rather than a weak document that can be changed easily and used by the majority to oppress the rights of the minority.

Honestly what is the point of having a constitution if it can be changed at will by a simple majority vote???

How can the courts and judges give fair and just rulings on laws that are constantly in flux and have no solid foundation that they are based on?


If it's really and truly important enough to change the constitution then I prefer our process for amending the US Constitution.

To Propose Amendments

•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment.
or
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

To Ratify Amendments

•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it.
or
•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.

This prevents the emotions of the moment of the mob or slick politicians with the aid of the media from changing our rights willy-nilly.

In the US we take our rights and our Constitution very seriously and no one is going to change them at a whim or by a simple majority vote.

Not really.
We do, we live in a democracy.
It isn't, but it doesn't really matter.

Well there in lies the problem with a democracy it's nothing more than mob rule.

Whatever the majority wants they get and the rights of the minority be damned.

People are too easily influenced by propaganda and emotions.

The rights of people must be protected from the will of the mob or they will be lost one by one. Slick politicians and other crooks using the media as a propaganda tool will con the people into believing that the carrots they hold out for them or the boogymen they frighten them with are more important than their rights to make their own decisions.


Let's not forget it was the "majority" who voted for Obama.


That's why I'm glad I live in a Constitutional Republic where my rights are protected from the fickle and quite often foolish decicions made by the "majority".

Nah, Cameron's a bit of a dick, but he's got some good instincts, unlike Obama who has done nothing for you (imo).

Obama wants the same things though, universal healthcare, a disarmed populace, and pretty much the entire socialist agenda that you and your countrymen live under.

Including a weak and ineffective Constitution that can be changed by the will of the mob.

[Warthogg]

Actually, "D" day is the scheduled day of a military operation and "H" hour is the exact time it starts.

Everyone calls the invasion of Normandy "D Day" but that was only one of countless "D days".

Yes, just as 'X day' was an undefined day to invade Japan.


Wart

[Roaring Mouse]

Ooookay.......

Both of your sources say the that people in the US are wealthier and happier than people in the UK.

So how do you explain this statement:





So other than being mislead by your country's propaganda how do you explain this discrepancy???

There are a number of studies in circulation concerning happiness; in most the UK and the USA are at the wrong end, and yes, in a number of them US citizens are reported as being happier; I think its because (a) the British are more understated that you yanks and (b) generally we like being miserable; if you had the same shite weather we have, so would you.

As for being wealthier, it depends on which measure of central tendency you use.

So other than being mislead by your country's propaganda how do you explain this discrepancy???

See above (and my previous post).

So those shotgun owners in Whitehaven could not use their guns to stop the maniac since they were locked up at home.

Like I said it doesn't do any good to own a gun if you can't carry it and use it when it's needed.

The current push for concealed carry that has taken place and passed in many US states can be traced back to Suzanna Hupp a lady who watched a maniac shoot her parents to death in front of her at a Luby's restraunt. Her greatest regret was that she obeyed the law and left her gun in her car. Her hardwork was instruemental in getting the Texas legislature to pass the law for granting shall issue permits for concealed weapons.

Probably true, but do you really want everyone carrying a concealed firearm? Do you really want widespread concealed firearm possession in hospitals, libraries, schools, etc. It seems an extreme position.

Well as I stated and I also noticed was mentioned in one of your links the US has much more diverse population than those countries.

" Being small helps too. Big countries have so many disparate groups (ethnic, geographic, civic) vying against each other that it's hard for true social cohesion and trust to emerge, and harder to maintain high levels of safety. Among countries with populations of more than 150 million, the United States ranks highest, at No. 10. "

So according to the link you provided the US ranks highest amongst large diverse nations when it comes to "happiness" and having a higher crime rate is to be expected for large nations with diverse populations.

It also ranks higher than your small, less diverse, low level of gun ownership, nation.


Good links thanks for the info!

I believe that Canada is more diverse than the US, and thanks to crap lying politicians, the UK is heading in the same direction as well. You appear to rather gloss over the "it helps", size may be a factor, but it is just one factor. Also, can you think of any other western, industrialised democracies that have populations of 150 million? The list of nations with 150 isn't exactly a list of the nicest places to live, most being third word nations with dodgy human rights records.

Well you seem to forget that we had already destroyed entire cities by fire-bombing them, just as the RAF had done to Dresden. In fact Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been left virtually untouched by American bombers and their citizens condsidered themselves "lucky", at least until the A-bombs dropped.

The US had left these cities untouched rather than destroy them like the rest of Japan's cities so they could see the effect of atomic bombs on a city and also hopefully shock the Japanese into surrendering.

Using an A-bomb on one of the cities that had already been destroyed by fire bombs probably would not have had the same effect on the Japanese leadership.

Plus as has been mentioned the Japs were looking for a good excuse to surrender to the US before the Soviets entered the fight. Much the same as it's been claimed German forces didn't put up as much of a fight against the British and US forces as they did the Soviets.

While the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were terrrible I still don't think they would have the same effect if used today on a hostile and determined nation.

My understanding is that the Japanese top brass were determined to continue fighting to the bitter end, but they were overruled by their Emperor after two bombs destroyed two cities. I think you cannot discuss the Germans and the Japanese in the same breath; the mentality of the two people were completely different, with the Germans acting as a defeated people, the Japanese repeatedly demonstrating that they would rather die than surrender.

Well there is nothing in the Constitution specifically dealing with abortion, so this is a matter for the legislature and judicial systems to work out.

Now capital punishment is a sticky issue because of the 8th amendment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As you mentioned the courts have flip-flopped back and forth on this issue.

But that is the job of the courts to decide whether the laws that our current legistatures pass are consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Is capital punishment "cruel and unusual punishment" or not?

The Constitution doesn't specifically spell out whether it is or not that's why we have courts and judges to decide.

These are all things that can decided within the frame work of our Constitution without making any changes to it.

The framework of our Constitution is what gives us those judges and courts that make those decisions on abortion and capital punishment and gives them their power to rule on these decisions. The judicial system that decides these "daily life" cases is one of the branches of govt spelled out in our Constitution. They are not somehow in opposition to it as you seem to think but rather a part of it. It is the job of the courts to make these decisions based on the laws laid down in the Constitution rather than letting them be decided by the whims of the majority or whatever fad is politically popular at the moment.

What exactly is it that has changed so much about humanity and the basic human rights all free men expect in the past 200 years that would somehow render our Constitution obsolete?


I would rather have my rights protected by a strong Constitution that is the law of the land, rather than a weak document that can be changed easily and used by the majority to oppress the rights of the minority.

Honestly what is the point of having a constitution if it can be changed at will by a simple majority vote???

How can the courts and judges give fair and just rulings on laws that are constantly in flux and have no solid foundation that they are based on?


If it's really and truly important enough to change the constitution then I prefer our process for amending the US Constitution.

To Propose Amendments

•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment.
or
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

To Ratify Amendments

•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it.
or
•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.

This prevents the emotions of the moment of the mob or slick politicians with the aid of the media from changing our rights willy-nilly.

In the US we take our rights and our Constitution very seriously and no one is going to change them at a whim or by a simple majority vote.

Which begs the question, does the Constitution serve you, or do you serve the Constitution?

Well there in lies the problem with a democracy it's nothing more than mob rule.

Whatever the majority wants they get and the rights of the minority be damned.

People are too easily influenced by propaganda and emotions.

The rights of people must be protected from the will of the mob or they will be lost one by one. Slick politicians and other crooks using the media as a propaganda tool will con the people into believing that the carrots they hold out for them or the boogymen they frighten them with are more important than their rights to make their own decisions.


Let's not forget it was the "majority" who voted for Obama.


That's why I'm glad I live in a Constitutional Republic where my rights are protected from the fickle and quite often foolish decicions made by the "majority".

The USA isn't the only nation whose constitution (whether codified or not) has checks and balances, but fundamentally, the will of the people is democracy in all its flawed glory. I am happy to live in a nation whose constitution is ever evolving to reflect the realities of the age, rather than a document wherein the judiciary constantly second guess what your founding fathers thought.

Obama wants the same things though, universal healthcare, a disarmed populace, and pretty much the entire socialist agenda that you and your countrymen live under.

Including a weak and ineffective Constitution that can be changed by the will of the mob.

I think the socialist agenda is a little more extensive that you suggest. As for myself living under a socialist system, all I can say is that you have a very vivid imagination, that or you've been watching a little too much Fox News. Also, you might recall who out Head of State is, not very socialist is it.

[weevil]

There are a number of studies in circulation concerning happiness; in most the UK and the USA are at the wrong end, and yes, in a number of them US citizens are reported as being happier; I think its because (a) the British are more understated that you yanks and (b) generally we like being miserable; if you had the same shite weather we have, so would you.

As for being wealthier, it depends on which measure of central tendency you use.

Yeah if I had to deal with your weather I'd probably have attitude as well.

Probably true, but do you really want everyone carrying a concealed firearm? Do you really want widespread concealed firearm possession in hospitals, libraries, schools, etc. It seems an extreme position.

Why not?

Yeah there's always a few nuts on the loose but why deny normal people the oppurtunity to fight back?

You never know where a whacko is gonna pop and go crazy and the bad part is psychos and crooks don't obey the law. So when you start banning guns in certain places then all it does is guarantee that the only one who has a gun is somebody who doesn't obey the law.

I believe that Canada is more diverse than the US, and thanks to crap lying politicians, the UK is heading in the same direction as well. You appear to rather gloss over the "it helps", size may be a factor, but it is just one factor. Also, can you think of any other western, industrialised democracies that have populations of 150 million? The list of nations with 150 isn't exactly a list of the nicest places to live, most being third word nations with dodgy human rights records.

Well Canada is a nation of only 34,000,000 and the US is a nation of over 300,000,000.

Canada diverse???

Nearly everyone in Canada is a white Christian of English or French ancestory how is that diverse???

According to the 2006 census the largest non-white minority is Chinese and there are only a little over 1,000,000 of them in a country of 34,000,000.

In the US we have a large Black population, and a huge fast growing hispanic population, as well as Asians, Jews, Muslims, and even the whites are extremely diverse coming from nearly every country in Europe.

And they all hate each other.

Diversity may sound good on paper, but as you appear to be finding out it isn't nearly as nice in reality.

As your country becomes more and more "diverse" you may well change your attitude about the need for a gun.

My understanding is that the Japanese top brass were determined to continue fighting to the bitter end, but they were overruled by their Emperor after two bombs destroyed two cities. I think you cannot discuss the Germans and the Japanese in the same breath; the mentality of the two people were completely different, with the Germans acting as a defeated people, the Japanese repeatedly demonstrating that they would rather die than surrender.

They knew they had lost and were looking for an excuse to surrender especially with the prospect of the Soviets entering the war and the possiblity of their nation being carved up between the US and the Soviets.

The A-bomb attacks allowed them to surrender without losing face and keep their nation intact.

Which begs the question, does the Constitution serve you, or do you serve the Constitution?

The Constitution provides us with the means to govern ourselves and at the same time protects us from those who govern us.

I'm not sure what you mean about us serving the Constitution, you'll have to elaborate.

The USA isn't the only nation whose constitution (whether codified or not) has checks and balances, but fundamentally, the will of the people is democracy in all its flawed glory. I am happy to live in a nation whose constitution is ever evolving to reflect the realities of the age, rather than a document wherein the judiciary constantly second guess what your founding fathers thought.

Our Constitution has served us well and helped keep us free for over 200 years.

I see no need to change it to reflect the current political fads.

I think the socialist agenda is a little more extensive that you suggest. As for myself living under a socialist system, all I can say is that you have a very vivid imagination, that or you've been watching a little too much Fox News. Also, you might recall who out Head of State is, not very socialist is it.

I think we just have different definitions of socialism.

To us in the US the big goverment nanny state with lots of entitlements and services which you have been advocating is what we consider socialism and is exactly the sort of govt Obama and the liberal Dems want for the US.

Whatever you want to call it Obama wants us to be just like you.

[Krupski]

.........do you really want everyone carrying a concealed firearm? Do you really want widespread concealed firearm possession in hospitals, libraries, schools, etc.......

Absolutely yes. An armed society is a polite society.

As far as the occasional nut... well he's going to have a gun anyway, so what's the difference?

[Krupski]

Diversity may sound good on paper, but as you appear to be finding out it isn't nearly as nice in reality.

Despite all the PC talk about "diversity", nobody really WANTS it.

Check out, say, the student union at any college. All the white kids are sitting together... all the black kids are sitting together somewhere else... all the chinese kids are sitting together somewhere else... etc...

They SELF SEGREGATE. If "diversity" was so damn great, every table would be "integrated". But, it never is.

[Warthogg]

Originally Posted by Roaring Mouse

.........do you really want everyone carrying a concealed firearm? Do you really want widespread concealed firearm possession in hospitals, libraries, schools, etc.......

Yes though I know that must be difficult for you to believe and perhaps impossible to understand.

I live in the very free state of Oklahoma where I carry concealed almost any where except on Federal property and the airport. (When I carry heavy my choice is a 1911 in .38 Super and my light carry pistol is a Walther PP.)

There are still some states and cities such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Chicago and New York City where law abiding citizens are denied weapons in favor of criminals who do have weapons and will always have weapons. Most of us just don't believe that makes sense.

How about Great Britain.........do your criminals have guns ??


Wart

[Roaring Mouse]

Yes though I know that must be difficult for you to believe and perhaps impossible to understand.

I live in the very free state of Oklahoma where I carry concealed almost any where except on Federal property and the airport. (When I carry heavy my choice is a 1911 in .38 Super and my light carry pistol is a Walther PP.)

There are still some states and cities such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Chicago and New York City where law abiding citizens are denied weapons in favor of criminals who do have weapons and will always have weapons. Most of us just don't believe that makes sense.

How about Great Britain.........do your criminals have guns ??


Wart

No where near as many as yours do.

[Roaring Mouse]

Despite all the PC talk about "diversity", nobody really WANTS it.

Check out, say, the student union at any college. All the white kids are sitting together... all the black kids are sitting together somewhere else... all the chinese kids are sitting together somewhere else... etc...

They SELF SEGREGATE. If "diversity" was so damn great, every table would be "integrated". But, it never is.

Amen brother. The marxist concept of "diversity" is there to make the hard-working white population feel bad about ourselves and make us believe that we (and only we) are racists and bigots.

Over here, "Indian" (most are run by Bangladeshis) and Chinese restaurants are run exclusively by non-whites; yet no "need" for diversity there argue the PC warriors; not enough non-whites on TV, clearly a need for an expensive enquiry funded by the taxpayer.

[Warthogg]

No where near as many as yours do.

I know you are correct cause we have more criminals !!



Wart

[Warthogg]

Amen brother. The marxist concept of "diversity" is there to make the hard-working white population feel bad about ourselves and make us believe that we (and only we) are racists and bigots.

Over here, "Indian" (most are run by Bangladeshis) and Chinese restaurants are run exclusively by non-whites; yet no "need" for diversity there argue the PC warriors; not enough non-whites on TV, clearly a need for an expensive enquiry funded by the taxpayer.

Oddly enough we have a fairly large Asian population here in Oklahoma City complete with an Asian district. The Vietnamese who run the largest Oriental grocery store are 'diversified' enough to hire Mexican workers. Now do they have green cards is another story.


Wart

OH...London has the best Indian restaurant I've ever eaten in. Cannot recall the name but is truly excellent.
Maroush - Beauchamp Place - place has very tasty Lebanese food.

[Roaring Mouse]

Yeah if I had to deal with your weather I'd probably have attitude as well.

And yet, to make me out to be a liar, it's been like summer here (25C), roll on the "proper summer" of rain, rain and more rain.

Why not?

Yeah there's always a few nuts on the loose but why deny normal people the oppurtunity to fight back?

You never know where a whacko is gonna pop and go crazy and the bad part is psychos and crooks don't obey the law. So when you start banning guns in certain places then all it does is guarantee that the only one who has a gun is somebody who doesn't obey the law.

You have a very heavily armed civil population, and yet how many murders and mass-murders have been prevented by all this gun possession; very, very few I would imagine. Now unless everyone has to carry a gun, this position is likely to continue.

Well Canada is a nation of only 34,000,000 and the US is a nation of over 300,000,000.

Canada diverse???

Nearly everyone in Canada is a white Christian of English or French ancestory how is that diverse???

According to the 2006 census the largest non-white minority is Chinese and there are only a little over 1,000,000 of them in a country of 34,000,000.

In the US we have a large Black population, and a huge fast growing hispanic population, as well as Asians, Jews, Muslims, and even the whites are extremely diverse coming from nearly every country in Europe.

And they all hate each other.

Diversity may sound good on paper, but as you appear to be finding out it isn't nearly as nice in reality.

As your country becomes more and more "diverse" you may well change your attitude about the need for a gun.

I suggest you go an visit Canada sometime; it is incredibly diverse (albeit only really in her large towns and cities - the rural areas are still pretty homogenous).

They knew they had lost and were looking for an excuse to surrender especially with the prospect of the Soviets entering the war and the possiblity of their nation being carved up between the US and the Soviets.

The A-bomb attacks allowed them to surrender without losing face and keep their nation intact.

And yet bucket-loads of them off-ed themselves when they surrendered.

The Constitution provides us with the means to govern ourselves and at the same time protects us from those who govern us.

I'm not sure what you mean about us serving the Constitution, you'll have to elaborate.

Does the Constitution serve you by giving you liberty, freedoms and protections in a modern age, or are you having to live your lives moulded by a set of 200 year old values?

Our Constitution has served us well and helped keep us free for over 200 years.

I see no need to change it to reflect the current political fads.

And my Country with an unwritten constitution has been free for 800 years.

I think we just have different definitions of socialism.

To us in the US the big goverment nanny state with lots of entitlements and services which you have been advocating is what we consider socialism and is exactly the sort of govt Obama and the liberal Dems want for the US.

Whatever you want to call it Obama wants us to be just like you.

Aw, you really are stretching socialism way past breaking point; what Obama wants for you may be illconceived for your culture and society, but it isn't socialism. Currently, our Government is attempting to reduce the size of what you would call a Federal Government; bring it on!

[Warthogg]

Aw, you really are stretching socialism way past breaking point; what Obama wants for you may be illconceived for your culture and society, but it isn't socialism.

R. Mouse, from you perspective as foreign (but related*) what is it you believe we have here in the US so far as .gov ??


Wart

* As someone once must have said: 'Divided by a commonality of language....'

[Roaring Mouse]

R. Mouse, from you perspective as foreign (but related*) what is it you believe we have here in the US so far as .gov ??


Wart

* As someone once must have said: 'Divided by a commonality of language....'

Sorry Wart, don't understand your question (rather ironic given the above mentioned quote).

[Krupski]

Does the Constitution serve you by giving you liberty, freedoms and protections in a modern age, or are you having to live your lives moulded by a set of 200 year old values?

Good values are ageless. Look at the Ten Commandments. Is "Thou shall not kill" outdated?

The only thing wrong with our Constitution is that our employees choose to ignore it.

[weevil]

You have a very heavily armed civil population, and yet how many murders and mass-murders have been prevented by all this gun possession; very, very few I would imagine. Now unless everyone has to carry a gun, this position is likely to continue.

More than you can imagine!

Those homicide figures you throw around aren't just "victims" a whole lot of them are crooks that have been shot during the course of a crime.

A few months ago some lads of color from Denver decided to drive down and "attempted" to rob one of the local liquor stores. One was shot dead on the spot and one of the others died on the drive back to Denver.

Now those poor misguided youths will show up on the crime stats as victims of gun violence but personally I have a hard time feeling bad about it.

I can give you a laundry list of criminals killed by their intended victims if you want and I'm sure the other members could give you similiar events from where they live.

Don't be fooled by the omissions of the media, guns are used everyday by honest citizens to stop crimes in the US.

I suggest you go an visit Canada sometime; it is incredibly diverse (albeit only really in her large towns and cities - the rural areas are still pretty homogenous).

I've been to western Canada on several occasions and it's one of the most lily-white places I've ever seen. Calgary is a city of over 1,000,000 and there weren't very many non-whites that I seen, at least not compared to similiar sized cities in the US where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a darkie of some sort.

Now I admit I've never been to the big cities back east but as is the case in the US and I'm sure your country as well it usually is the big cities that are the most diverse and have the most crime and violence.

And yet bucket-loads of them off-ed themselves when they surrendered.

And I'm sure they would have fought and died to the last man if the emperor had told them to, A-bombs or not.

Does the Constitution serve you by giving you liberty, freedoms and protections in a modern age, or are you having to live your lives moulded by a set of 200 year old values?

Our forefathers were actually quite far sighted when they wrote it. I suggest you read it and then you tell me if it applies well to modern life.

Tell me what specific parts you feel are outdated and obsolete in a modern society.

And my Country with an unwritten constitution has been free for 800 years.

Well that kinda depends on who's definition of "free" we're using.

Aw, you really are stretching socialism way past breaking point; what Obama wants for you may be illconceived for your culture and society, but it isn't socialism. Currently, our Government is attempting to reduce the size of what you would call a Federal Government; bring it on!

Well that's what angers so many of us, he is trying to take as down the same path of failure that so many Euro countries have already tried. Rather than learning from the example of yours and other countries that it just doesn't work, he is bound and determined to shove it down our throats.

Perhaps in the next election the "majority" will wise up.

We'll see.

[Warthogg]

Sorry Wart, don't understand your question (rather ironic given the above mentioned quote).

No prob.....what form of .gov do you believe we have here in the states ??


Wart

[Warthogg]

Is "Thou shall not kill" outdated?

Maybe. Some believe reads "Thou shall not murder".



Wart