Leo2
Vexatious correspondent
I have spent a little time when I was young, travelling through the USA, and a lot more time on US political boards. I have come away with the impression that Americans are, in general, a friendly, kind, and remarkably generous people.
I have also come away with the impression that their entire history appears to be a series of self-congratulatory, nationalistic myths. Theirs is also very possibly the most nationalistic society on earth (and it wins against some serious competition,) so every American child, from the point at which it understands language, is told that theirs is the best of all possible societies, and in that way, unquestionably exceptional.
One of the persisting national myths is that the particular Puritans who infested the Mayflower and other vessels were escaping religious persecution in Merry Old England. This is a load of cobblers, as any research will show, and their aim was not to escape persecution, but to impose their particular brand of religious mania upon others. Neither the Brits nor the Dutch were having any, so they took themselves of to the New World, where there was more opportunity to impose that at the point of a musket.
Another myth which feeds into the national sense of exceptionalism is the story that a handful of locals, armed only with muskets, defeated the then might of the British Empire on the field of battle. None of their history makes other than passing mention of the French forces, land and naval, which, for example, outnumbered the Continental Army by better than three to one at Yorktown, and was almost solely responsible for the French/American victory. Neither is the Fact that French noblemen and, later, the French Crown bankrolled and supplied the American rebels with arms, uniforms, and the materiel with which to wage war.
All of which brings me to the perceived necessity of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. At that time, the newly formed nation may perhaps have had concerns that the British may attempt to reclaim their lost possession, or that some other powerful European nation, such as the Dutch or the Spanish (or even the French) might take advantage of the situation to expand their respective empires.
To that end, the necessity of 'A well regulated Militia' might have seemed obvious to 'the security of a free State'. A not unreasonable enabling clause to the following 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' However, the American people, and more recently, the US Supreme Court, has seen the individual bearing of arms to be a God-given right, independent of the enabling clause (which was collective in intent).
The point of all this waffle being - irrespective what controls may be exercised upon the purchase and ownership of various classes of arms, until the 2nd Amendment is recognised as an archaic remnant of a danger long past, and repealed - the 'right to bear arms' will defeat any common sense attempts to rein in the annual carnage from gunshot wounds - currently standing at roughly 33,500. To put it in more dramatic terms - when Americans value the lives of their children more than some mythical 'freedom', there is a chance that US society will attain an acceptable level of civilisation (not to mention safety).
I have also come away with the impression that their entire history appears to be a series of self-congratulatory, nationalistic myths. Theirs is also very possibly the most nationalistic society on earth (and it wins against some serious competition,) so every American child, from the point at which it understands language, is told that theirs is the best of all possible societies, and in that way, unquestionably exceptional.
One of the persisting national myths is that the particular Puritans who infested the Mayflower and other vessels were escaping religious persecution in Merry Old England. This is a load of cobblers, as any research will show, and their aim was not to escape persecution, but to impose their particular brand of religious mania upon others. Neither the Brits nor the Dutch were having any, so they took themselves of to the New World, where there was more opportunity to impose that at the point of a musket.
Another myth which feeds into the national sense of exceptionalism is the story that a handful of locals, armed only with muskets, defeated the then might of the British Empire on the field of battle. None of their history makes other than passing mention of the French forces, land and naval, which, for example, outnumbered the Continental Army by better than three to one at Yorktown, and was almost solely responsible for the French/American victory. Neither is the Fact that French noblemen and, later, the French Crown bankrolled and supplied the American rebels with arms, uniforms, and the materiel with which to wage war.
All of which brings me to the perceived necessity of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. At that time, the newly formed nation may perhaps have had concerns that the British may attempt to reclaim their lost possession, or that some other powerful European nation, such as the Dutch or the Spanish (or even the French) might take advantage of the situation to expand their respective empires.
To that end, the necessity of 'A well regulated Militia' might have seemed obvious to 'the security of a free State'. A not unreasonable enabling clause to the following 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' However, the American people, and more recently, the US Supreme Court, has seen the individual bearing of arms to be a God-given right, independent of the enabling clause (which was collective in intent).
The point of all this waffle being - irrespective what controls may be exercised upon the purchase and ownership of various classes of arms, until the 2nd Amendment is recognised as an archaic remnant of a danger long past, and repealed - the 'right to bear arms' will defeat any common sense attempts to rein in the annual carnage from gunshot wounds - currently standing at roughly 33,500. To put it in more dramatic terms - when Americans value the lives of their children more than some mythical 'freedom', there is a chance that US society will attain an acceptable level of civilisation (not to mention safety).
