Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[Huckleberry]

a study done by the International Epidemiological Association in 1998 in regards to 35 high and upper middle income countries.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

This survey draws no conclusions, but looking at the data it is easy to see that a great percentage of the deaths are young people 18-30. As one ages the statistical percentage nationwide to be a victim of homicide by a firearm drops significantly, while the statistical chance to die from suicide rises somewhat.

It seems to me that young people are more likely to be active in gangs or drug use or altercations that would put them at risk for becoming a firearm homicide statistic. Most of these deaths are probably not home robberies. Just speculation on my part.

 

[Anttech]

I'm sure they'll find another method of getting rid of you. If a person wants you dead, there are many ways of doing it.

I don't have the link here, but I believe there are over 200 million registered guns in the US, now compare that to the number of murders commited with guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings#List_of_school_shootings

Not a problem?

Although I doubt some posters here will admit it, the gun is by far the best method. Anyway, I have debated out on this subject, if you search through my posts you can see my stance, and if someone wants a proper debate about the real issue here not cheap shots (not directed at you Evo), then by all means PM me.

 

[ukmicky]

I don't have the link here, but I believe there are over 200 million registered guns in the US, now compare that to the number of murders commited with guns.

I wonder what the statistics would say if you included people who got shot but survived.

 

[ShawnD]

The side in favor of arming everyone is overestimating the ability of scared teenagers to defend themselves and, of course, is also overlooking the fact that making guns ubiquitous would turn thousands (tens of thousands?) of bar fights into gunfights every year.

The problem with what you're saying is that it just doesn't seem to happen. It would make sense that more guns means more shootouts, but it never happens that way. Are fights in Texas more likely to turn into shootouts than fights in Washington (the state, not the city)? Not really. Are fights in Switzerland more likely to turn into shootouts than those in UK? Not really.
People are not stupid. They won't just cross the line and commit a felony simply because they can. For that same exact reason you wouldn't anticipate somebody being beaten to death with a chair at a local bar. It's not exactly hard to kill somebody with a chair, but it doesn't happen because even somebody who's drunk out of their mind is smart enough to know they'll spend a lot of time in jail for doing that.

 

[Monique]

I don't have the link here, but I believe there are over 200 million registered guns in the US, now compare that to the number of murders commited with guns.

I just did a few posts earlier: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1305638&postcount=240

 

[out of whack]

Statistics don't lie

Thanks for the graph. It's interesting, but I cannot concur with your interpretation of it. The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart. Other countries like Norway and New Zealand have much lower rates of firearm homicide in spite of many more households with guns. The USA may come in second, but again compare the homicide rate of Norway, Canada and Switzerland with comparatively as many armed households. There is no convincing correlation.

Something else ought to be at play. I suspect a culture of violence and desensitization to it in both Northern Ireland and the USA as the root of the problem more than the mere number of weapons. The Irish manage to kill each other very well with whatever weapons are available to them. Americans may have the constitutional advantage of more availability in trying to catch up to number 1, but the tool is not the motive. Violent individuals can harm others using whatever tools are available to them. It may be that violent societies become armed rather than armed societies become violent.

 

[Monique]

Thanks for the graph. It's interesting, but I cannot concur with your interpretation of it. The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart. Other countries like Norway and New Zealand have much lower rates of firearm homicide in spite of many more households with guns. The USA may come in second, but again compare the homicide rate of Norway, Canada and Switzerland with comparatively as many armed households. There is no convincing correlation.

I did not claim that there is a correlation, I showed that guns don't make you a winner or a loser. I rather live in a society where guns are prohibited and I'm glad that I do.

 

[Anttech]

The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart.

Does that surprise you? They have been in a 50 year war there. The IRA and UDF have been killing each other for years, which finaly has stopped. You can't comparing N.I. and the USA, it would be like comparing Iraq currently and the USA.

 

[Anttech]

I did not claim that there is a correlation, I showed that guns don't make you a winner or a loser. I rather live in a society where guns are prohibited and I'm glad that I do.

Me too

 

[Kurdt]

Thanks for the graph. It's interesting, but I cannot concur with your interpretation of it. The most violent country seems to be Northern Ireland, and they reach this position without the benefit of as many firearms as most other countries on your chart. Other countries like Norway and New Zealand have much lower rates of firearm homicide in spite of many more households with guns. The USA may come in second, but again compare the homicide rate of Norway, Canada and Switzerland with comparatively as many armed households. There is no convincing correlation.

Something else ought to be at play. I suspect a culture of violence and desensitization to it in both Northern Ireland and the USA as the root of the problem more than the mere number of weapons. The Irish manage to kill each other very well with whatever weapons are available to them. Americans may have the constitutional advantage of more availability in trying to catch up to number 1, but the tool is not the motive. Violent individuals can harm others using whatever tools are available to them. It may be that violent societies become armed rather than armed societies become violent.

There are other factors. For example Northern Irelands statistic is anomalous due to the sectarian violence that occurred there. Also New Zealand and Switzerland have populations that are more isolated than the population of places like America. So there are many other things to take into account and that graph doesn't give the whole story.

 

[Bystander]

Oh well if you're getting into that then that's ridiculous. This isn't about institutionalised mass murder.

The thread is about mass murder, the second amendment, and gun control. If Europeans prefer institutionalized mass murder as the cost of security against occasional, individual, small scale mass murders, and Americans prefer small-scale, freelance mass murders as the cost of security against institutionalized mass murder, that's the way things are. You think you got a good deal, and we think we got a good deal. You stay out of our faces about it, and we won't rub your noses in your messes.

If you are going to go that way, how about America's hit counter during both world wars, and Iraq and Afghanistan. Ramps up you conservative estimate of a few dozen.
(snip)

WWI? Nothing. WW II? Laconia, Pacific submarine campaign, hearsay about a Patton order regarding prisoners on Sicily, post-war kangaroo courts in concert with our allies. Iraq and Afghanistan? We're chasing the mass murderers.

Few dozen a decade.

_________________________________________________________________

"Incidents," hmm --- such as Europe's mass murder rate over the 20th century? That's what? Couple hundred thousand a year? And it's been accomplished with gun control --- here in the provinces without gun control we average a piddling couple dozen a decade.

There may be more to the "prevention" arguments defending the 2nd amendment than meets the eye.

(snip)The prevention is **ZIPP** all to do with your gun laws, and everything to do with your education system and of course your history.

Which, of course, includes our gun laws.

Why when we have to argue about gun's with Americans they become all illogical and come out with nonsense like this..

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.

Why can't you just admit that your society is very masculine based, with the good and bad bits that come with that? Keep your guns, because *you want them* but please for the love of god stop the Bull**** arguments like:

More guns = more safe
Europeans live in a Violent society because of events that happened > 50 years ago

"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

(snip)As I have said umpteen times, keep your guns, your society respects individual *freedoms* more than the health of society in general. What I can't understand is that people feel the need to *excuse* your constitution gun amendment by asserting society in general is better for the huge circulation of guns, when it would be easier to swallow if you just said: "We know they are bad for society, but we want em anyway"

Individual freedoms are the measure of the health of a society --- unless you're talking about termite hills, ant farms, and bee hives.

The second amendment bailed Europe out of deep trouble twice in the 20th century, three or four times counting the Cold War and Balkans. Don't kid yourself one minute who and what made it possible for you to b*tch about the way we live our lives.

 

[Anttech]

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.
<snip>
"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

Well, judging by what happened after ww2 it would have to seem that America didnt come to save our asses, but rather to ecconomically bog down and take everything it could, which it did. Most of your ecconomy was built on the back of WW2, so I would stop the we saved your asses rubbish, we saved yours just as much.
Seems I did actually read the history

Individual freedoms are the measure of the health of a society

I don't think that owning a gun is a freedom anyone needs to have.

 

[drankin]

Well said, Bystander.

 

[loseyourname]

Thats going to the extreme and its not about that. Ultimately you have to start questioning whether the constitution applies x many years on and keep doing it throughout history or you'll get trapped in a dogmatic cycle where nobody has any real freedom. No document is infallable, and even if it is at the time its made, it doesn't necessarily mean it is throughout time. Morality and ethics are completely changable concepts, and thus so are societal laws and rights. that's why we should be encouraged to debate whether things are applicable any more or whether new things should be added. Its how society progresses and how it has done for millenia.

We can be encouraged to debate, but he's right that the constitution, as currently interpreted through relevant case law, precludes the banning of all firearms. I already included the link to the attempt by the city of San Francisco, which was struck down in court. In the absence of a constitutional amendment, there doesn't seem to be much in terms of legal recourse than can be done to keep guns out of homes and off the streets. The best we might do is to use market forces, by boycotting gun sellers and distributors and manufacturers. That obviously isn't going to happen because Americans love their guns, so what we get are restrictions. An outright ban just isn't an option, no matter the moral and social sense that citizens under different constitutions might think it makes.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing, though.

 

[Huckleberry]

Here is the oath I took upon entering into the military.

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Firstly I made an oath to the Constitution of the United States. That includes not only my right to bear arms, but every citizens right to bear arms. Secondly I made an oath to the president and the officers above me. That's the order I keep them in my mind in regards to importance.

Notice that this oath, last updated in 1962, still recognizes the importance to protect the constitution from domestic enemies. That could include, but is not restricted to, the United States government if it does not support or defend the constitution. My right to constitutional freedom takes prescedence over the government of the nation that I live.

How could a government that chooses this oath for it's military not recognize the importance of the second amendment. I don't own a firearm, but I will never accept the removal of an ammendment from the Constitution. I have already swore an oath that I was prepared to die for. That hasn't changed.

Fair gun legislation that keeps guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens and out of the hands of criminals is a good thing. Banning guns, or legislation that overly penalizes law abiding citizens, is just not acceptable. A government that would remove my means of defending the freedom of my nation becomes the enemy and must be replaced.

Hopefully this allows people to understand somewhat how ingrained this sentiment for freedom is in the American culture. I realize that firearms statistically do not make a safer nation. I suspect that banning firearms would not make a more safe nation. What I know is that the day firearms are banned in this nation is the day I pick up a gun and join the revolution. My oath still stands.

 

[Kurdt]

The thread is about mass murder, the second amendment, and gun control. If Europeans prefer institutionalized mass murder as the cost of security against occasional, individual, small scale mass murders, and Americans prefer small-scale, freelance mass murders as the cost of security against institutionalized mass murder, that's the way things are. You think you got a good deal, and we think we got a good deal. You stay out of our faces about it, and we won't rub your noses in your messes.



WWI? Nothing. WW II? Laconia, Pacific submarine campaign, hearsay about a Patton order regarding prisoners on Sicily, post-war kangaroo courts in concert with our allies. Iraq and Afghanistan? We're chasing the mass murderers.

Few dozen a decade.

This is not debate. You clearly are reading something you don't like and are having to lash out rather than logically argue a case against.

What about the bombing of Japan? You are designing your definition of mass murder to be beneficial to yourself. I'll say again, the thread was not started to debate indiscriminate mass murder, it was started to see if changing the 2nd amendment could prevent events like virginia tech. Read the first post.

 

[Monique]

Banning guns, or legislation that overly penalizes law abiding citizens, is just not acceptable. A government that would remove my means of defending the freedom of my nation becomes the enemy and must be replaced.

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

 

[Kurdt]

Here is the oath I took upon entering into the military.

Firstly I made an oath to the Constitution of the United States. That includes not only my right to bear arms, but every citizens right to bear arms. Secondly I made an oath to the president and the officers above me. That's the order I keep them in my mind in regards to importance.

Notice that this oath, last updated in 1962, still recognizes the importance to protect the constitution from domestic enemies. That could include, but is not restricted to, the United States government if it does not support or defend the constitution. My right to constitutional freedom takes prescedence over the government of the nation that I live.

How could a government that chooses this oath for it's military not recognize the importance of the second amendment. I don't own a firearm, but I will never accept the removal of an ammendment from the Constitution. I have already swore an oath that I was prepared to die for. That hasn't changed.

Fair gun legislation that keeps guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens and out of the hands of criminals is a good thing. Banning guns, or legislation that overly penalizes law abiding citizens, is just not acceptable. A government that would remove my means of defending the freedom of my nation becomes the enemy and must be replaced.

Hopefully this allows people to understand somewhat how ingrained this sentiment for freedom is in the American culture. I realize that firearms statistically do not make a safer nation. I suspect that banning firearms would not make a more safe nation. What I know is that the day firearms are banned in this nation is the day I pick up a gun and join the revolution. My oath still stands.

Well as a European I guess this is why we get divisions over this and other matters. I cannot understand such unwavering devotion to something that is inflexible. I suspect many other Europeans are puzzled likewise. Seems far to close to clandestine religious indoctrination, and the belief that the constitution is right no matter what.

I couldn't live constrained like that.

 

[drankin]

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

Nope. And I don't believe it has been disputed. But, if it were, and it was able to go all the way to the Supreme Court, it just might be considered unconstitutional. Our Constitution protects the people first, not the government. It allows for unconstitutional governments to be abolished should it ever be our situation.

 

[Huckleberry]

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

I'm glad you asked. There are versions of some military weapons and vehicles that civilians are allowed to own, but not most explosives, fully automatic weapons or things like tanks.

Much like this whole debate, the weapons themselves are not really the point. The point is that the second amendment is our best defense. Every member of the military has swore an oath to protect it and would be treasonous to take arms away from law abiding citizens. If it came to this point then the government would lose much of it's ability to take the firearms that it banned because of disorder within the military.

 

[Anttech]

I suspect many other Europeans are puzzled likewise. Seems far to close to clandestine religious indoctrination, and the belief that the constitution is right no matter what.

I would tend to agree with that observation, it was something I was going to state a while back but didnt. There is also a paradox with the ideal of democracy and a constitution which is absolutely above encroachment. The will of the people must be above the constitution, but it doesn't seem to be, it seems the constitution is almost something that one must hold on to, and everything should be compared against it. Even in the light of facts, and for the want of a better society to live in, the constitution is more important.

 

[drankin]

Even in the light of facts, and for the want of a better society to live in, the constitution is more important.

You will be hard pressed to convince an American that without our Constitution we would have a better society. We exist as a society and enjoy our lives the way they are because of the Constitution.

 

[Anttech]

You will be hard pressed to convince an American that without our Constitution we would have a better society. We exist as a society and enjoy our lives the way they are because of the Constitution.

I am not trying to say that, I think your constitution on the whole is actually a good thing. However its not above encroachment, and should be debated and looked at. The UK doesn't even have a constitution, were you aware of that?

 

[Huckleberry]

The Constitution is not what governs Americans. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights was created to protect the American people from a government that would take away our freedoms. It specifies what authority a government and a state has over the people. The Constitution is not limiting Americans. It prevents the government from limiting us.

check it out
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

 

[drankin]

I am not trying to say that, I think your constitution on the whole is actually a good thing. However its not above encroachment, and should be debated and looked at. The UK doesn't even have a constitution, were you aware of that?

To be honest, no, I didn't. I'm not familiar with the foundations of your government. I'm pretty much a layman considering my own. Being brought up American, the freedoms we enjoy are simply the way it is and even taken for granted to some degree. Until we are confronted with ideas that are an obvious violation.

 

[Bystander]

Well, judging by what happened after ww2 it would have to seem that America didnt come to save our asses, but rather to ecconomically bog down and take everything it could, which it did. Most of your ecconomy was built on the back of WW2, so I would stop the we saved your asses rubbish, we saved yours just as much. (snip)

Yup --- didn't leave anything but that filthy Marshall Plan money, assorted base payrolls, civilian employment --- that sort of thing.
_________________________________________________________________

The thread is about mass murder, the second amendment, and gun control. If Europeans prefer institutionalized mass murder as the cost of security against occasional, individual, small scale mass murders, and Americans prefer small-scale, freelance mass murders as the cost of security against institutionalized mass murder, that's the way things are. You think you got a good deal, and we think we got a good deal. You stay out of our faces about it, and we won't rub your noses in your messes.



WWI? Nothing. WW II? Laconia, Pacific submarine campaign, hearsay about a Patton order regarding prisoners on Sicily, post-war kangaroo courts in concert with our allies. Iraq and Afghanistan? We're chasing the mass murderers.

Few dozen a decade.

(snip)What about the bombing of Japan? You are designing your definition of mass murder to be beneficial to yourself.

Nerp --- mass murder is the gratuitous slaughter of people who are no threat to the murderer: Soviet murder of Polish PoWs in the Katyn; loading Poles, Slavs, Jews, gypsies, and who all else into boxcars and shipping them to gas chambers; shipwreck survivors such as from the Laconia, assorted sinkings by submarines of merchant shipping in both Atlantic and Pacific theatres; engineered famine (peacetime) in the Ukraine; executions of PoWs by Allied forces in all theatres (some of which probably fall into the same gray class as Malmedy --- they surrendered, you don't have the manpower resources to guard and control them, and there's a war still on in the other direction --- ugly situation); Lidice (again, reprisals were jus in bellum at the time, but that was a bit over the top); Dresden, Guernica, Coventry were all deliberate attacks on civilians, the cities themselves having no strategic or tactical value, and known to have no value as targets at the time.

"Japan?" You do understand that there was a war on at the time? You also understand that there were very few precision munitions available to the USAAF for bombardment purposes? And, that the USAAF was charged with destroying war industries and military targets? And that war industries and military targets tended to be co-located with urban centers? The efficacy of the strategic bombing campaign in WW II is still the subject of debate, but it's more along the lines of "picking a single class of key target (oil, ball bearings, transportation, aircraft, munitions), and concentrating solely on that target until something collapses" vs. "trying to hit everything a little bit and hoping one target is more fragile than another," or, the "daylight precision raid" vs. "nighttime area raid," rather than the "collateral damage" and "civilian morale" question.

I'll say again, the thread was not started to debate indiscriminate mass murder, it was started to see if changing the 2nd amendment could prevent events like virginia tech. Read the first post.

A 23 year old S. Korean senior English major committed indiscriminate mass murder on the campus of Virginia Tech --- the thread IS discussing indiscriminate mass murder --- the only question remaining is whether the U.S. should adopt the European preference for mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events.

 

[EL]

There seems to be some kind of almost divine shimmer over the US constitution. We changed a part of ours some decades ago (when making it possible for a woman to inherit the kings throne), and we still live happily in peace despite that.
However, what it takes to make a change in the constitution is such a decision in two consecutively elected Parliaments, which means that no changes can be made unless the people have clearly given their permission.

Arguing that guns should be allowed since the american people wants it that way is completely fine to me.
But basing the arguments on the fact that long time ago a few guys wrote it down on a paper is a bit like...religious fanaticism.

 

[drankin]

There seems to be some kind of almost divine shimmer over the US constitution. We changed a part of ours some decades ago (when making it possible for a woman to inherit the kings throne), and we still live happily in peace despite that.
However, what it takes to make a change in the constitution is such a decision in two consecutively elected Parliaments, which means that no changes can be made unless the people have clearly given their permission.

Arguing that guns should be allowed since the american people wants it that way is completely fine to me.
But basing the arguments on the fact that long time ago a few guys wrote it down on a paper is a bit like...religious fanaticism.

That's insulting.

 

[Anttech]

Yup --- didn't leave anything but that filthy Marshall Plan money, assorted base payrolls, civilian employment --- that sort of thing.

Filthy for sure, the UK was a wreak after the war, in which America was able to inject life back into its economy, and collapse all the trade routes the UK owned. The UK and many European countries were debted to the US for the next upteen years.
The UK just payed back its final installments, a nice thank you don't you think, for taking the brunt of Nazism, filthy, yeah Id agree with that.
Belgium is still paying back its debts, this is actually a big reason why the taxes are so high here, its a myth that its due to social security etc, most of the money gets pumped into paying the interest, filthy you say, for sure.

As for base payrolls etc, pennys, you can keep them.

 

[out of whack]

That's insulting.

Huh? Why?

Some people really seem to revere this paper like bible thumpers revere theirs. But unlike the latter, "the rules" can be changed, no matter where they are written. What goes for the eighteenth amendment can go for the second.

 

[drankin]

Huh? Why?

Some people really seem to revere this paper like bible thumpers revere theirs. But unlike the latter, "the rules" can be changed, no matter where they are written. What goes for the eighteenth amendment can go for the second.

Sure, it can be amended. But we don't want it to be. Calling us religious fanatics for agreeing with the document that is the foundation of our nation is insulting.

 

[Anttech]

the only question remaining is whether the U.S. should adopt the European preference for mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events.

Our preference? Let me guess, in "bystanderland" the tactic of taking a healthy debate down to toilet level is normal practice right?

Perhaps I missed all the posts of Europeans here stating they were all for mega-scale mass-murdering, if so I apologise.

I guess that arming the public with side-arms is going to stop that paranoid delusion you seem to have involving the Dictator President. Although first you should really make your mind up, either what happened was a "micro-scale event" or "indiscriminate mass murder." I suppose if you are going to choose your definition per what fits your current argument best, continue to use both opposite descriptions for the same event.

<snip>23 year old S. Korean senior English major committed indiscriminate mass murder on the campus of Virginia Tech ---</snip>

 

[EL]

That's insulting.

Insulting?

Sure, it can be amended. But we don't want it to be. Calling us religious fanatics for agreeing with the document that is the foundation of our nation is insulting.

No no, I'm not saying agreeing with the document is like religous fanatism. I'm saying basing once agreement with what is written in the document on the fact that "it is written in the document" is like saying "the bible is true because the bible is true".

 

[BobG]

So the whole point of the constitutional right to own a gun is to be able to overthrow your own government, in the case it would turn against its own people? So are citizens allowed to own any military weapons in the US? Just curious.

Technically, yes. We'd just finished a successful rebellion against one government we found oppressive and the states weren't very trusting of being ruled by some outside central government - somewhat similar to how a lot of Europeans might feel about their countries being ruled by a central European Union.

At the time of the Constitution, the only advantage a central military might have over locals was cannons. While individual citizens might not own cannons, state militias did, so none of the states were overmatched by a pretty weak national force.

In fact, threatening to secede from the United States and form their own nation was a pretty effective way for blocks of states to get the national government to do what a minority of states might want. The threat of secession of states bordering the Mississippi influenced Jefferson's decision to make the Louisiana Purchase in spite of coastal states thinking it was a waste of money.

Based on past history, the South had pretty good reason to believe it would work for tariffs on imports and slavery, too. Turned out it didn't. They hadn't paid close enough attention to how much stronger the national government was allowed to become after the British burned down our capitol in the War of 1812.

There always has to be some kind of balance between safety and freedom from government and we've changed our assessment of what that balance should be based on changing circumstances. Our assessment of a lot of issues have changed. That's why the Constitution has been changed 27 times. To ban guns, it would have to be changed again (technically, one could argue that the Supreme Court has taken an over-restrictive view of the 2nd Amendment to ban military weapons - it's taken some creativity to avoid confronting the 2nd Amendment directly).

 

[ukmicky]

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.

"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

You like to use the word European as in the above text and in the rest of the post the above was from . As an English man I'm also a European, so i take it your including me and the rest of the UK citizens when you call the Europeans gutless.Didnt the UK send troops to the balkans

I wouldn't under any circumstances class the UK as gutless but are in fact one of the few countries which can legitimately say they have a proud record in regards to standing up for those unable to protect themselves.

I take it the word European was used in error.