[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard.

If you're talking about my personal experiences, don't worry about it. I've always found it odd that some people can carry hostility over events that took place before they were even born. I'm talking about a couple of odd individuals who have their own skewed visions of history. I doubt either of them ever bothered to pick up a book, let alone a dozen, and explore what really happened and why.

...it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.

Very true. I try to remind people that while, as John Adams said later, "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people..."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...ms-to-h-niles/

In fact the shooting only started with that whole Lexington/Concord thing. Even that has its debating points, as the colonials perceived the move to be an infringement of their rights while the Governor saw himself as trying to curtail a dangerous threat. Did he see himself as a tyrannical dictator? I would say almost certainly not.

Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

That is a great example of what can happen when hotheads collide. As usual the British had already apologized for the impressments, and always returned the American sailors when it was proven that they were indeed from our side of the pond. It was the Americans this time who made a mistake, and we're lucky we came out of it the way we did.

A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.