To: groanup
Britain wasn't weak. It was distracted. Here is a list of the other conflicts they were involved with:
French & Indian War
1755-1763
War in Europe 1756-1763
Conquest of India 1751-1763
War in West Indies 1756-1763
Oude Campaign 1760-1764
Philippines 1762
1st Mysore War 1767-1771
Carib War 1772-1773
Rohilla Wars 1774-1794
American War of Independence
1775-1783
War with France & Spain
1778-1783 (this one was brewing for a decade after the end of the seven years war)
Korah 1776
1st Mahratta War 1776-1782
Note how the W of Independece coincides with the War with France and Spain. The later took advatage of the British distraction with the colonies to press the emerging empire.
To: Pitchfork
Wow, you're back. You haven't commented on the 1982 Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution Report that I posted... are you sure want the BATF to be more aggressive, when even the Senate thinks they were out of control before Waco and Ruby Ridge?
To: Pitchfork
You are just winging it now. The name of the book escapes me that focused on the machinations in the British parliament over the unpleasantness in the American colonies, but suffice it to say, that parliament concluded that the enterprise was not worth the candle. Other wars were not a factor, although finance was. There had always been determined opposition to the Crown's policies, and finally the opposition gained the upper hand. I think maybe the book was the John Adams biography that came out.
273 posted on
03/14/2003 10:12:09 PM PST by
Torie
To: Pitchfork
Cute... the first nine on that list ended before 1776. Exactly how did that distract them from the American Revolution? (And exactly how did the American Revolution distract them from the American Revolution? You have it listed, too.)
You seem amazed that a global empire had to fight many battles at once to maintain its empire. That didn't exactly slow the Brits down. (In fact, they were very adept at using local forces to patrol colonies, freeing up their regulars to conquer dissent elsewhere.)
To: Pitchfork
current glut of weaponsaccidental deaths
ease of access
gun show loophole
suspected criminals
Reasonable limits
ethnic violence
mere availablity may lead to use.
Thanks for the reply, but all you've done is post the standard gun-grabber boilerplate.
I think you're just playing games and wasting everyone's time.
287 posted on
03/14/2003 11:15:53 PM PST by
primeval patriot
(The last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it.)
To: Pitchfork
Very nice list you posted, irrelevent to the discussion, but nice.
So we have established that Mr. "American Government Teacher" has a history book or two around. Good.
Now, you have stated that seeking the original intent of the framers of the constitution is useless, it's all a matter of interpretation, blablablah. Nothing to back this up, just your contention.
I listed at least ten very clear and unambiguous quotes by our founding fathers stating in clear language their intent behind the adoption of the 2 amd., and I can post twenty or thirty more just as easily.
So far you have, although being asked repeatedly, posted zero, zip, nada, goose egg, none, nothing refuting the clear language of the founders in support of the RKBA.
Surely, Mr. "American Government Teacher", you can put together another nice list like your list of obscure British skirmishes, of other important Americans from the time of the adoption of the constitution, refuting what our founding fathers said about the RKBA?
Even ONE?
Hours have gone by, still you run away from my challenge like a yellow coward.
Come on Mr. Am Govt teacher, PUT UP, OR SHUT UP.
.
.
.
.
(Sound of crickets.)
293 posted on
03/15/2003 1:05:52 AM PST by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson