Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/18/2015 3:52:14 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

He is not the messiah, he is a very naughty boy



I try my best.....

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/18/2015 4:30:07 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
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.


Bullshit, no such law was enforced

quote:

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.


The tax laws passed were due to the high cost of the Seven Years War which kept the French from taking over the colonies.

quote:

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.


Again, due to the Seven Years War

quote:

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.


Care to point out some evidence for this claim, as far as I am aware nobody was ever transported to England afor teial and naval Courts only applied to smugglers.

quote:

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.


Something else I would love to see evidence of. Although the irony of what happened to the rest of America after 1776 needs to be apreciated, since you are all pissy about taking other peoples things.

quote:

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.





I really cant be arsed with the rest of your post, but it is interesting you piss and moan about the War of 1812, given you declared war on us and not the other way round.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/18/2015 5:20:18 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
First, while the colonies were taxed "because of the seven years war" as you put it, the fact the rest of the empire did not share the same burden seems to be a bit un-fair.

How in the hell is quartering troops in private homes with the home owners footing the bill for the troops food etc acceptable?

Lets start with the basic facts.

All those taxes you justify with the Seven Years War were levied on the colonies, and no where else in the British Empire, a bit unfair do you not agree?

Goods produced in the American Colonies had to be transported on British owned ships, not ships built or owned by colonists.

Lumber produced in the Massachusetts colony, indeed all American Colonies, was subject to "Appropriation" by royal agents without compensation for construction of ships for the Royal Navy.

As for the US declaring war on Britain in the War of 1812, well gee, when American citizens are impressed into the Royal Navy at gun point, and American ships seized, I do believe there was justification for the fucking declaration of war.

Of course, there were some lessons the British learned from the American Revolution as well, on how to deal with disgruntled colonial citizens.

Google "British Colonial Massacres"

As for the little thing about being pissy about taking other people's things, yes the history of American Expansion in the United States is dripping with blood to the point of erasing from history at least 9 native American cultures.

However, the contention that the Americans were as bad if not worse than the British Colonial rule is a bit stretched. And the practice of unfair taxation of colonies did not end with the American Colonies, now did it.

How about the tax and monopoly on salt in India? I mean, its not like it is necessary for human survival (oops yes it is.)

How about the atrocities committed by the British in the Middle East, Africa, India, Malaysia? All in the name of maintaining order in the British empire.

Historically speaking, there are a total of 7 incidents in American History of US troops being involved in the massacre of unarmed civilians.

Of course, those were not actually sanctioned by the US Government.

The list of 'sanctioned' massacres of Australian Aborigines is a long and bloody one, but the key is sanctioned by the Government...

Begs the question, just when do Australia stop being a colony of Great Britain?

November 21, 1920
April 13, 1919
April 23, 1930

Google the dates, might help using unarmed, civilian and British.

Seriously, if you stop and look at the areas under direct British Colonial rule and the present problems in those areas, even some British politicians are admitting a direct link.

Yup, the history of British Colonial rule is one filled with compassion and helping indigenous people become civilized...

The history of the British Empire both within its national borders and its colonial holdings is a bit colorful, to say the least, of course, those the British turned over to self rule in the 20th century are still cleaning up the mess left.



_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/18/2015 6:24:30 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline


Historically speaking, there are a total of 7 incidents in American History of US troops being involved in the massacre of unarmed civilians.

cite please

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/18/2015 6:37:16 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First, while the colonies were taxed "because of the seven years war" as you put it, the fact the rest of the empire did not share the same burden seems to be a bit un-fair.

How many times have you told us that fair is where they sell cotton candy?

How in the hell is quartering troops in private homes with the home owners footing the bill for the troops food etc acceptable?

Since the house holder was the one being protected it does not seem unreasonable.

Lets start with the basic facts.

All those taxes you justify with the Seven Years War were levied on the colonies, and no where else in the British Empire, a bit unfair do you not agree?

There you go looking for cotton candy again. But just to put things in perspective. The french and indian war was a money maker for the colonist. They got land and swag.


Goods produced in the American Colonies had to be transported on British owned ships, not ships built or owned by colonists.

That is why they call it the "colonial system" duuuhhhh

Lumber produced in the Massachusetts colony, indeed all American Colonies, was subject to "Appropriation" by royal agents without compensation for construction of ships for the Royal Navy.

Until you produce a cite that is just your opinion.

As for the US declaring war on Britain in the War of 1812, well gee, when American citizens are impressed into the Royal Navy at gun point, and American ships seized, I do believe there was justification for the fucking declaration of war.

Which american ships were siezed? There are numerous records from u.s. ships that indicate that the britts only took those who were actually britt citizens. The primary cause of the war was the u.s. refusal to live up to the terms of the treaty of paris which ended the revolutionary war.

Of course, there were some lessons the British learned from the American Revolution as well, on how to deal with disgruntled colonial citizens.

Google "British Colonial Massacres"

As for the little thing about being pissy about taking other people's things, yes the history of American Expansion in the United States is dripping with blood to the point of erasing from history at least 9 native American cultures.

Historically speaking, there are a total of 7 incidents in American History of US troops being involved in the massacre of unarmed civilians.

Of course, those were not actually sanctioned by the US Government.

The ones that were, were like the removal of the cherokee. The seminol war. The destruction of the buffalo which was the life support system for the native americans of the planes. my lai,cam ne,wounded knee...the list goes on and on and on.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 7:11:35 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline
to sum it up:

you want to keep your private guns because you fear another British invasion?

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 11:57:49 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
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.


Bullshit, no such law was enforced

quote:

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.


The tax laws passed were due to the high cost of the Seven Years War which kept the French from taking over the colonies.

quote:

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.


Again, due to the Seven Years War

quote:

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.


Care to point out some evidence for this claim, as far as I am aware nobody was ever transported to England afor teial and naval Courts only applied to smugglers.

quote:

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.


Something else I would love to see evidence of. Although the irony of what happened to the rest of America after 1776 needs to be apreciated, since you are all pissy about taking other peoples things.

quote:

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.





I really cant be arsed with the rest of your post, but it is interesting you piss and moan about the War of 1812, given you declared war on us and not the other way round.



couple things, the reason there was imports from Britain of such things as axes and shovels and whatnot, is that one, they sold us stuff because that was what they did, and our industries were not numerous in those days, we were an agrarian (planting) society.

Two, anywhere you use colonies (Not you, Mr. Thatcher, the yank) our bitch was that we (the us) did not have representation directly in Parliament. We had 'friends' in Parliament, William Pitt but we felt that we were being treated differently than other colonists as well, the stamp act was never promulgated to other colonies, ie. Canada......another player in those wars). WE felt we were Englishmen, you see, and entitled to the same rights of representation. NOT virtual representation. Now, we weren't Canadians, we weren't Indians and so on...........

Well, thats enough. That other crap is mostly if not entirely wrong.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 1:50:52 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

to sum it up:

you want to keep your private guns because you fear another British invasion?



No, we want to keep private ownership of guns because of the simple fact that 200+ years ago we learned a lesson about a tyrannical government and what it will do to basic human rights.

I meant to ask earlier, but how many members of Sinn Féin are still in British Prisons?

For that matter, has Northern Ireland been freed to join the rest of Ireland?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 2:01:55 PM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

to sum it up:

you want to keep your private guns because you fear another British invasion?



No, we want to keep private ownership of guns because of the simple fact that 200+ years ago we learned a lesson about a tyrannical government and what it will do to basic human rights.

I meant to ask earlier, but how many members of Sinn Féin are still in British Prisons?

For that matter, has Northern Ireland been freed to join the rest of Ireland?


any other lessons rather within the last 200 years? ... maybe a kind of "update" ...? just wondering

and while I am not informed about the number of Sinn Féin prisoners I know there are Sinn Fèin MPs in the Northern Ireland assembly
and the Good Friday agreement has the option for a referendum in the province to join the republic (some lessons from the troubles I guess)

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 2:02:24 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
They were never held captive. Their parliament voted to remove themselves from an Irish Free State.

Read a little history.

Scotland has several times voted on disunion, and it has failed. Northern Ireland can vote on it any time they want, but they are not as daft as the Scots.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 4:25:24 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

to sum it up:

you want to keep your private guns because you fear another British invasion?



No, we want to keep private ownership of guns because of the simple fact that 200+ years ago we learned a lesson about a tyrannical government and what it will do to basic human rights.

I meant to ask earlier, but how many members of Sinn Féin are still in British Prisons?

For that matter, has Northern Ireland been freed to join the rest of Ireland?


Your bullshit increases each time you post. Part of the good friday agreement was that all so called "political prisoners" thats terrorists to most people, were freed. It has also escaped your deluded attention that just as in the US back in 1776, many of those in Northern Ireland wish to stay in the UK.



(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 5:14:58 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

to sum it up:

you want to keep your private guns because you fear another British invasion?

Well, they would have the element of surprise on their side.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 5:21:01 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

to sum it up:

you want to keep your private guns because you fear another British invasion?

Well, they would have the element of surprise on their side.

But the NYPD would arrest them.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 5:38:32 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
What makes you think they would invade ny?

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 5:52:16 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

No, we want to keep private ownership of guns because of the simple fact that 200+ years ago we learned a lesson about a tyrannical government and what it will do to basic human rights.

The government is already tyrannical, but for the most part not in ways that directly threaten me with imminent grievous bodily harm. On the other hand, in 2013 there were about fourteen thousand homicides, not to mention rapes and assaults with serious injury, a significant number of which were committed against innocent people minding their own business in places where they thought they were safe.

The security of a free state depends on more than just the absence of tyrannical government. The rationale for private ownership of firearms is the defense of self and others against any threat. When people can't take a stroll through a public park after dark without risking assault, and having the cops tell them they were nuts, it should be obvious that an ineffective government can accomplish the job just as well.

In my opinion, no government that seeks to deprive its citizens of an effective means to defend themselves can be said to have their well-being at heart, no matter what it tells them, and where a majority votes to disarm everyone, neither do they. Most victims of violent crime are unarmed. But when a homicide involves two actors, one of whom takes the victim's gun away, both are equally guilty of murder.

K.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 6:05:28 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

to sum it up:

you want to keep your private guns because you fear another British invasion?



No, we want to keep private ownership of guns because of the simple fact that 200+ years ago we learned a lesson about a tyrannical government and what it will do to basic human rights.

Maybe, after 200+, we're ready to learn something else now. It's had time to sink in.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 8:06:37 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53



Your bullshit increases each time you post. Part of the good friday agreement was that all so called "political prisoners" thats terrorists to most people, were freed. It has also escaped your deluded attention that just as in the US back in 1776, many of those in Northern Ireland wish to stay in the UK.





Seriously? Most of the colonists wanted to stay with Great Britain?

And you say I am full of shit?

Man, the Brits have a unique way with bullshit.

The bullshit that the majority of colonists wanted to stay with Great Britain...

Have you even looked at the demographics of Norther Ireland lately? Here's a hint.

Your ignorance of facts indicates either a failing in the British education system, or a personal blindness to history. My personal ties to Northern Ireland is a hell of a lot closer historically than most, as is my knowledge of restrictions within "Crown" colonies of the 17th and 18th century. Its kind of nice to come from a family of educated people that had a habit of writing down everything, such as reasons for coming to the Americas in the first place.

Give you a hint, though, my Catholic ancestors weren't from continental Europe and the patron Saint is a guy named Patrick.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/23/2015 8:35:30 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Seriously? Most of the colonists wanted to stay with Great Britain?

He said "many," not "most."

The source to which you linked says that about 20 percent of the colonists were Loyalists, so "many" does seem warranted.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/24/2015 2:13:11 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Seriously? Most of the colonists wanted to stay with Great Britain?

He said "many," not "most."

The source to which you linked says that about 20 percent of the colonists were Loyalists, so "many" does seem warranted.


Considering the population of the colonies, a few would be a better term.

Nor does it change the historic fact that Parliament and King George's unfair treatment of the colonies was the driving force behind the revolution, or that, for all intents and purposes, Northern Ireland is an occupied territory.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. - 10/24/2015 2:20:39 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Considering the population of the colonies, a few would be a better term.

One in five strikes me as more than a few.

Ymmv, of course.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109