Whoops, forgot the second link.
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
These are just two of many.
L.W.
Sorry, second link won't work.Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
My grandmother was in Chicago for the 1919 race riot (instigated in part by Richard J. Daley, future mayor and father of future mayor and gun control fanatic, Richard M. Daley).When the federal government abandoned the Reconstruction governments, the new found freedom of the slaves was crushed by the weapons of the advocates of Jim Crow. That was resisted by men with guns who lost. They lost the right to vote. The rich and powerful organized their cops and courts to enforce that power. When that didn't work they had their Klan and White Citizen's Councils, the same cops and judges and foremen just wearing hoods at night. Lynchings and night riders spread terror. They kept all poor folks "in their place".
Rise of the civil rights movement revived that fight. Guns were there too. It broke the power of the old boys.
Yup, just put the apostrophe in the wrong spot.It's actually Edward Gibbon (no "s").
Unfortunately, no one will be able to look at the 2018 election results until next year.If one looks at a 2018 election results at a county level you would be wrong...
Along the same lines, the gun industry in the latter half of the 1800s was a huge industry. We were selling them all over the world because they were the cutting edge of technology. It was a huge economic spurt. Those small north eastern states were like Silicone Valley is today.Another piece of the picture is this:
From the beginning of settlement of what would become the U.S. firearms were necessary and a tool of everyday life. What guns were here were imported from England and occasionally other parts of Europe. They were also traded for with the Spanish and the French.
With the beginnings of firearm manufacture in the colonies a brisk trade within the colonies began. Guns were also liberally traded with the Indian tribes, despite early on laws against it. If money was to be made and it was, such laws were a minor obstacle and no law was close by to enforce it anyway. This trade began long before independence and grew afterward. A market was created and overtime a firearms industry.
The industry opposed all laws that infringed on their ability to sell their product and supported those laws that enhanced it. Like other products they created a market for those products. They helped create an image and a romance.
In Cooper's "Leatherstocking Tales", which began in the 1820s, he about creates the image of the American hero: alone, solitary, relying only on a few, bowing to no man, and with his rifle. Natty Bumppo, a white man raised by Indians. Became an archetype, a thing of romance. It sold.
Something else:
Slavery, men with guns watching over the slaves. Slaves rebelled or escaped or both. The first thing a slave wanted was a weapon to fight there way free with. For the slave master and the slave guns meant power.
The victory over slavery was won with guns and cannon and by the slaves departing and being slaves no more...with guns in their hands. With rifles in their hands they defended their new right to vote.
When the federal government abandoned the Reconstruction governments, the new found freedom of the slaves was crushed by the weapons of the advocates of Jim Crow. That was resisted by men with guns who lost. They lost the right to vote. The rich and powerful organized their cops and courts to enforce that power. When that didn't work they had their Klan and White Citizen's Councils, the same cops and judges and foremen just wearing hoods at night. Lynchings and night riders spread terror. They kept all poor folks "in their place".
Rise of the civil rights movement revived that fight. Guns were there too. It broke the power of the old boys.
The place of firearms as a tool in defense of rights isn't something from 1776 and the years after that. It's a living thing. Not something to be given up lightly.
The English were doing pretty well until 1920 when the first large scale gun restrictions were passed. Before that, a prime minister had said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England." And Jan Stevenson wrote that "until 1920 you could buy anything short of a field piece at any ironmonger's in the country." Note that New York got the Sullivan Act in 1911. The antis have been working for a long time.
If our country in fact should lose its "gun culture", and with it the sense of personal responsibility for our own safety, .
I suspect that were he being chased by somebody with a ceramic chef's knife, screaming "Allahu akhbar!", he might reconsider...One mentioned that if he was told he had to carry a firearm on duty....He would quit. That statement astounded me.
True, however GOA (Gun Owners of America) and other pro-gun organizations have a large presence on social media sites like Facebook. I usually "share" their posts and alerts as well as posts from other pro-gun organizations. In addition I regularly re-post pro-gun stories whenever they appear in the news.Cases of honest citizens in the U.S., who are armed, fighting back against criminals, are myriad. Their stories are sometimes reported locally, but almost never nationally because the left wing liberals who control national news do not want the nationwide audience to know anything not in lock-step with their agenda of eventual disarming the "worker peasants."
Here are a couple of very recent examples.
http://wkrg.com/2017/06/23/i-opened...em-veteran-relives-home-invasion-in-theodore/
L.W.
Visited the UK seven yrs back. Was in the Cany Mans Pub in Edinburgh and met three men who were senior members of the Police Department there. We got talking when they were informed I was a State cop from Montana. All three were shocked ,that I carried a hi cap auto sidearm, as well as a 12 gauge riot gun and a semi auto M-14 rifle.
It was also apparent in our conversation that they felt ownership of multiple firearms, was basically evidence one was up to no good. And should be investigated!
One mentioned that if he was told he had to carry a firearm on duty....He would quit. That statement astounded me.
Yes. Quite a different attitude towards firearms in the UK.
Thank you Midwest I will look into that.
I can't say that I share the all same views as expressed on here but I will look in to it. I have found it very interesting reading these replies, thank you all.
Visited the UK seven yrs back. Was in the Cany Mans Pub in Edinburgh and met three men who were senior members of the Police Department there. We got talking when they were informed I was a State cop from Montana. All three were shocked ,that I carried a hi cap auto sidearm, as well as a 12 gauge riot gun and a semi auto M-14 rifle.
It was also apparent in our conversation that they felt ownership of multiple firearms, was basically evidence one was up to no good. And should be investigated!
One mentioned that if he was told he had to carry a firearm on duty....He would quit. That statement astounded me.
Yes. Quite a different attitude towards firearms in the UK.
And I think that was largely due to the fact that Colt - then others - were mass producing. Whereas european makers of the time less so.Along the same lines, the gun industry in the latter half of the 1800s was a huge industry. We were selling them all over the world because they were the cutting edge of technology. It was a huge economic spurt. Those small north eastern states were like Silicone Valley is today.
Britons have been conditioned to accept victimhood. If attacked, run or surrender and then call the police, they will come and keep you safe. I've spoken to many of my peers (young, mid-20s professionals) and they are just thankful that the London attackers were only armed with a van and knives, and not firearms. They make the assumption that, if even highly regulated possession of personal protection weapons were allowed, it would greatly increase the pool of firearms for criminals to access. They also make many other assumptions, such as having armed civilians would add to the confusion of a terrorist attack. The idea that people would rather have the option to defend themselves rather than wait for the police simply doesn't cross their mind.
Not to mention UK law prohibits carrying any weapon or even item that is to be used for self defence. In their mind, they are all offensive weapons, even if their intention is to be purely defensive. If attacked, all you can do is use whatever you can improvise at hand Jason Bourne style. A rolled up newspaper, a pen, keys etc...some of the more prepared people carry a Maglite, or an 'Unbreakable Umbrella' - stuff they can quite easily explain away. Pepperspray is totally banned, and actually falls under the Firearms Act, along with handguns, machineguns and grenade launchers