03 May 05
Originally posted by shavixmirwikipedia:
They didn't. It was the French army which ultimately defeated the English in the US, wasn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yorktown_%281781%29
Aftermath
The British prisoners amounted to about a fourth of all redcoats in the American colonies. It was not clear at the time that Yorktown was the climax of the war, since the British still occupied key ports such as New York City and Charleston, South Carolina. Sporadic fighting continued after the Yorktown surrender, and Washington believed the war might drag on for another year.
However, British Prime Minister Lord North resigned after receiving news of the surrender at Yorktown. His successors decided that it was no longer in Britain's best interest to continue the war, and negotiations were undertaken. The British signed the Treaty of Paris (1783), recognizing the United States and promising to remove all her troops from the country.
----
before looking on wikipedia, tried googling for this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22french+involvement%22+%22american+revolutionary+war%22
found this sidenote, looks interesting:
thread on world's greatest military blunders
http://www.cosforums.com/archive/index.php/t-14381.html
(there is a discussion partway down on french involvement in ARW.)
03 May 05
Originally posted by CliffLandinI don't have to consult the police before I decide how I think best to defend my family. Nor does my reasoning entail doing whatever I want without consequence.
Actually it isn't your prerogative to determine the level of threat and the appropriate response. That is called vigilantism. What would be an appropriate response would be to alert the police if you feel threatened or if someone is stalking your wife. By your reasoning I could shoot you if, say, you cut me off in traffic. If I felt that you cutting me ...[text shortened]... to shoot them. As stated before the shotgun would be much more effective at this than a handgun.
You are confusing with right to choice how to defend myself or my family with the rightness or wrongness of the choice made. If you want to argue I should not choice to use a gun go ahead. But I have no way said anything goes.
03 May 05
Originally posted by CliffLandinWhat happens in reality is different, CL. In Michigan, people who qualify for CCP's undergo periodic training and extensive background checks. Last time I renewed it was 12 hours class and range work. Three of the instructors were active law enforcement representing federal, state and local jurisdictions and the fourth was a lawyer from the county prosecutors office who spent two hours making sure we understood the law. People who legally carry are cautious and law abiding in the extreme.
Actually it isn't your prerogative to determine the level of threat and the appropriate response. That is called vigilantism. What would be an appropriate response would be to alert the police if you feel threatened or if someone is stalking your wife. By your reasoning I could shoot you if, say, you cut me off in traffic. If I felt that you cutting me ...[text shortened]... to shoot them. As stated before the shotgun would be much more effective at this than a handgun.
04 May 05
Originally posted by WeadleyAmish Bombs are home made bombs, Just put Toilet bowl Cleaner (The Works, not the new fomula) in a plastic pop bottle, and put in some tinfoil, a couple min later it makes a huge pop, to make it even more fun, fill it with bb's 🙂
Amish bomb????
Please clarify.
I make them all the time
04 May 05
Originally posted by CliffLandinhttp://www.fff.org/comment/com0411f.asp
Please provide proof of your "studies" about Canadian shooting sprees. I have looked and looked and found nothing to back up your claim. The US leads the world in deaths by handguns in straight numbers and per capita. There is no information that I could find that says that people being armed causes less deaths. If you are to make such an outrageous claim please provide some facts to back it up, otherwise it is just crap.
http://www.spruce.ca/auxgunlaws200311l.htm
Sorry I shouldve posted this, if you want more, let me know
04 May 05
Originally posted by shavixmirWhy do I own a Gun? its a sport, all my neighbors have guns, I have no fear here in Wyoming (except for the Grizzly), I love target practicing with friends, hunting, competition, etc, that's why I own a Guns
I think the first question you should ask yourself is: "Why do I want to own a gun?"
Eventually you'll stumble across the words "fear" and "scared" in your answer.
Then you should ask yourself this second question: "Do people who are scared and who are in fear act rationally?"
Eventually you'll stumble across the sentences: "Like hell ...[text shortened]... . Are you being taught to not be scared? Or are you being pumped with fear at every corner?
Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters
04 May 05
Originally posted by flyUnityThis isn't a question of guns, it is a question of handguns. And the handguns in question aren't used for target practice or competition. They are the semi-automatics that are mostly used for violent crimes. The two source that you sited to prove your point can be counter with about a hundred others by doing a google search for "gun deaths in the us and canada".
Why do I own a Gun? its a sport, all my neighbors have guns, I have no fear here in Wyoming (except for the Grizzly), I love target practicing with friends, hunting, competition, etc, that's why I own a Guns
Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters
Here is a quote from one such article:
Owning a handgun has been illegal in Canada since the 1930s; the only exceptions being the police and registered gun clubs or gun collectors. As a result, “Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million.” (The Case for Gun Control 4) Therefore, there are 63.3 times more handguns in the US. (The Case for Gun Control 5) Much research and statistical analysis by the COALITION for Gun Control has shown that crimes that involve firearms are predominantly executed with a handgun. Hence, low levels of handgun ownership indicate lower levels of gun homicides in Canada.
05 May 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightLOL! Don't bet any money on impeaching him. We impeached Clinton and he remained in office. Maybe Bush is a menace, but I rather like him. I think it's refreshing to have a president who says, "Bring 'em on." when asked about terrorists.
Well, if you do impeach Bush, please send him to Guantanamo Bay or something, the guy is a menace ...
05 May 05
Originally posted by Delmerlol I kid, I'm sure he will serve out his term, besides as someone pointed out, the next guy in line is Cheney ...
LOL! Don't bet any money on impeaching him. We impeached Clinton and he remained in office. Maybe Bush is a menace, but I rather like him. I think it's refreshing to have a president who says, "Bring 'em on." when asked about terrorists.
05 May 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightMaybe Stang is involved in a conspiracy to make Cheney president. Maybe that's what's behind all his posts. He's secretly a Cheney supporter.
lol I kid, I'm sure he will serve out his term, besides as someone pointed out, the next guy in line is Cheney ...