Lingusitics What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Allow Regarding Gun Ownership?

[GENIERE]

Yes Mr. Parsons:

Arguments I’ve made in principle are diminished through years of enacted laws and regulations addressing the practicality of the issue. States Rights are almost non-existent. Prior to our Civil War, a sentence might have been written like this:

“The United States are[/size] dismayed by the actions of the French government.”

After the Civil War it’s written like this:

“The United States is[/size] dismayed by the actions of the French government.”

Can't think of any 'bear arms' puns, but if anyone has a "bear (as in ursa) arms" avatar, I'd like to have it.

Regards

 

[Dissident Dan]

I've seen a bumper sticker before that says something like "Protect your right to arm bears."

Geniere, As far as the slippery slope argument goes, I don't think that no regulation at all is the answer. We have all kinds of rules in our societies, and I don't see why firearms of all things should be a special case excluded from having rules.

 

[GENIERE]

Yo Dan:

I'm not an anarchist. I recogognize the need for some general regulation. Each regulation must be sent through a grinding mill, weakened, twisted and made ambiguious before it's enacted.

I like that bumper sticker. I almost missed the transposition of the words as I tend to scan down the center of a page when I'm reading.

Regards

 

[Zero]

GENIERE,


Conservatives regard any regulation as a bite out of our inalienable rights. This is simply not true.

'Conservatives' today want to restrict rights they don't think they need, and keep the rights they are told to by the politicians and media sources they support.(This is true of 'liberals' as well) 'Conservatives' don't care about the 4th Amendment, for instance, because they only assume that criminals have something to fear from illegal searches. On teh other hand, they think guns should be exempt. Your argument is similar to the one I'm using about the administrations stipping of privacy rights, except that I don't think there should be NO regulation in either case. Let the government, on the other hand, use teh lightest touch possible in each case. There will always be people watching, to make sure they don't go too far, but zero regulation is no answer either.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Each regulation must be sent through a grinding mill, weakened, twisted and made ambiguious before it's enacted.

Thats why the NRA writes most of our gun laws.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats why the NRA writes most of our gun laws.

Hmmm...they might, but it is a good thing they can't get all of them passed. Look at a law in Texas from a few years back, which does NOT allow private organizations to restrict guns on theoir property without going through a big ordeal.

 

[LURCH]

The language of the document seems fairly clear to me. The amendment states, within its own text, what its purpose is. It exists to make sure "the militia" will be properly armed. The only question remaining, then, is "who is 'the militia'?".

Perhaps a look at the fifth amendment may help to clarify. This amendment states that a person accused of a serious crime has the right to stand before a grand jury. However, there are some exceptions to this rule which are listed within the amendment. The exceptions are cases "arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia". It would seem obvious that, if cases involving "the militia" are listed as an exception to the right being guaranteed to "the people", then these two entities cannot be one and the same. "The militia" is not "the people".

I am not saying that I favor stronger gun control laws. I am not saying that I oppose them. I am only saying that if there are good reasons for granting citizens the right to bear arms, then these reasons should be presented. The argument for the right of citizens to bear arms must stand on these reasons alone. The Constitution does not say anything about the matter one way or the other.

However, if Congress does try to pass some law prohibiting the National Guard from owning weapons, I will be the first to protest.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

IN the Ca(u)se of the “Right to Arm Bears”

2003-04-29

Speaking on behalf of the (Wild) Bears, their legal counsel, this (i)D(i)ot Typistsss…s

IN seeking justice and fairness in defense of the law, the Bears would be seeking that the Hunters, of said ‘Wild’ bears, would be restricted in their rights to use either, “Baiting” technique, or the alternative “Dog Chase” technique, Such that, if it is that a ‘Hunter’ should be wanting to hunt a Bear, then they must use only the advantage that is afforded by their armament of a Weapon of Distal Destruction. (WDD’s)

It is of note that the bears would, upon such a venture of the said ‘Hunter”, have the acknowledged right to defence, to the point of aggressive attack as it is VERY Clearly seen that the Bear IS in FULL DEFENCE OF IT’S VERY LIFE, Hence all (wild) Bear have Full authorization to use any, and all, means possible, in the defense of the lives.

This is a 500 lbs animal that has lived it’s entire life in a Forest, knows only that, and how to move through that forest silently, at either, rapid speeds, or at a slowness of step that belies it’s clearly remarkable muscle tone. It can Burst speed at ~25 mph, the fastest human(s) do(es) ~less then half that.

As I have had privilege to know persons who conduct such ventures, I can certainly appraise you of their testimony to the fact that if you go ‘Hunting’ a bear, the Bear WILL end up hunting you.

On behalf of the (Wild) Bears, it would be a much more respectful association if, the ideal is to just leave them alone, the second, (Plan “B”) is to know that the best way possible, to shoot a Bear, is with a Camera, from a safe distance. (never more then One third of the path to safety)

Now, if you should wish to challenge my right to speak on behalf of the (Wild) Bear, well then, follow the trail of ‘bells and pepper’, when you find one, you must press you ear to their lips, (preferably left ear) and then push hard against them with your head, and, if they decide you do it properly, then they will let you in on the “INternational Secret” (It’s only just a conspiracy and this is dis-information) that is the fact of “me” being their lawyer.

BTW, don’t expect to hear it is phonetic English, they speak in Bear.


If they decide not to trust you with the secret, well, look where you are with your ear pressed up against a Bears Head, pushing, And the bear has some “Rights!” too, Ya KNoW!


This just in, they just contacted me “telepathically”, they have agreed to a ‘tacit’ agreement on the telling of my name, you must now obtain it, from them, in writing.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by GENIERE
“A well regulated Militia,

A group of locally organized and trained people with adequate discipline.

being necessary to the security of a free State,

Without a strong fighting force representing and drawn from the common people, they are prone to be oppressed or conquered.

These first two lines are essentially window dressing. They detail the thinking of the authors, but have no force.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

In the 18th century, Arms meant military regalia, not guns. Bearing arms meant donning some symbol identifying you as a combatant for one side in a cause. The crime of bearing arms against the crown did not mean shooting at the king, but being part of an organised military action to depose the king. The people had a right to form fighting forces and to bear the Arms of those fighting forces. The term "Arms" being a simplified version of "Coat of Arms".

shall not be infringed.”

No limits may be placed on this right. This is pretty drastic. Most rights have caveats linked to some form of due process. This means that no militia can ever be banned, no matter their activities. No adverse action may be taken against anyone simply because they are in a militia.



There are some people who claim "Arms" means weapons. That is nonsense. If that were so, anyone would have the right to stockpile nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. You could keep heroin if you promised only to use it in a dart gun as a weapon. The fact that this right may not be infringed means that incarcerated criminals could not be denied weapons. While prisoners can lose other rights, this one can "not be infringed". No state could function this way, even in the 1790's. It is obvios the founders did not equate arms and weapons.

Njorl

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

YEAH NJORL!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Njorl



In the 18th century, Arms meant military regalia, not guns. Bearing arms meant donning some symbol identifying you as a combatant for one side in a cause. The crime of bearing arms against the crown did not mean shooting at the king, but being part of an organised military action to depose the king. The people had a right to form fighting forces and to bear the Arms of those fighting forces. The term "Arms" being a simplified version of "Coat of Arms"...


There are some people who claim "Arms" means weapons...


No state could function this way, even in the 1790's. It is obvios the founders did not equate arms and weapons.

Njorl

I'm sorry Njorl, but I think your stretching it a bit. Arms is derived from Old French armes and that from the Latin arma meanig "weapons, tools, implements. Arms has meant weaponry for a very long time. It'd be nice if you gave some reference for your claims.

 

[FZ+]

On the subject of semantics, I guess it wouldn't work to just withdraw all the guns and issue people with clubs and rocks instead? I don't think there was a clause to require that the citizens had "state of the art" weapons...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
On the subject of semantics, I guess it wouldn't work to just withdraw all the guns and issue people with clubs and rocks instead? I don't think there was a clause to require that the citizens had "state of the art" weapons...

There are indeed some people who interpret the second Amendment to mean ALL arms, ie. tanks, jet fighters, and even nuclear weapons. Bill Gates could buy himself a carrier battle group.

 

[megashawn]

is the problem the second ammendment or an ancient constitution?

See, Dennis Miller made a good point the other night saying that we in America are living by a several hundred year old doctrine.

One that, during the time of writing, was influenced by people who believed slavery was fine, and other such atrocitys.

Really, it seems it is time to "redesign" the constitution. It is getting old, its concepts outdated, and in some cases useless. Back when the constitution was written, we did not have much of the technology we have now. Maybe there is ammendments, but no original part of the doctrine about a automobile drivers rights.

But really, I don't understand what gives any man the right to have power over any other man. Unfortunatly, it seems that we're all born into this position.

But I say, if the translation is to confusing, junk it and start righting a new one.

 

[GENIERE]

Njouri is incorrect as these writings obviously refer to weapons.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776,

...that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possesses over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed…
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possesses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion...
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
---Zacharia Johnson arguing that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression.

And my favorite!

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Regards

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So what you are saying is that your country has Swallowed a "Poison Pill", and that that is to protect you?

Do I have that right?




Ps am awaiting fur'ther contact from the bears, some imminent news awaits this
(i)D(i)ot's Typistsssss...s Ears. Oh ya, if (when) you get it in writing, the 'iconographic' of "Bear", in English, looks/reads like this, * urp'us * (the underlined part!) but that is not what it looks like when they sign it!

So, get the pen firmly into the Bears paw before you give him/her the legal documents to sign. (earl)

 

[Njorl]

Don't have a lot of free time lately, but for starters, since some one likes Noah Webster:

from http://www.potomac-inc.org/noahweb.html

Bear - To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.

Coat - That on which ensigns armorial are portrayed; usually called a coat of arms. Anciently knights wore a habit over their arms, reaching as low as the navel, open at the sides, with short sleeves, on which were the armories of the knights, embroidered in gold and silver, and enameled with beaten tin of various colors. This habit was diversified with bands and fillets of serval colors, placed alternately, and called devises, as being divided and composed of several pieces sewed together. The representation of these is still called a coat of arms.

Arms - The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c, as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.

I never said that arms did not mean weapons. But the phrase "bear arms" was always more commonly referring to wearing a defining military regalia.

The writings of Jefferson have essentially no weight when considering constitutional law. He had nothing to do with it, and showed he did not value it. The writings of Madison are much more troublesome to me. I will have to do some research when I can find the time.

Now, if we did accept that arms means weapons, by what right are incarcerated criminals denied arms? Alone among our rights this one may not be infringed.


Njorl

 

[Alias]

So I have this very important right to wear my family crest?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard(said).

Why would this right to wear my family's crest be so important that it had to be stated in the BOR?

Gimme a break Njorl. It's like a scene from Monty Python. Imagine a scene where the founding fathers are hashing out the Bill of Rights and John Cleese, while acting rather effeminate, shyly suggests from the back of the room, "And the right to wear a dress."

To say that they didn't mean "guns", they meant "a sign on your clothes" is preposterous.

*********

Oh yeah, "Obey me! For I am the Evil One, George Bush!"

 

[GENIERE]

Njouri:

If you like Madison…

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
— James Madison

Or Washington…

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
---1796 George Washington, Farewell Address,

And even if he doesn’t count…

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson

Some later quotes…

Mahatma Ghandi - Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

Adolph Hitler - This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! - April 15, 1935

Josef Stalin - The United States should get rid of its militias. – 1933

Sarah Brady to Howard Metzenbaum - Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. – 1984

Adolf Hitler - ... History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. - Edict of 18 March 1939

Back to the founders…

Samuel Adams - The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

George Mason - To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them...

George Washington - The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good

George Washington - Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Regards

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

A ‘brief’, by the Bea’rep, (moi) (pas toi) (moi)

In the recognition of the existence of the (Wild) Bear, the representation requires a presentation that makes absent the “humanified” usage of an ‘EK 50’ rate that the Bea’rep so irresponcibly used.

(WOW< I think that they are going to withhold payment from me, if I don’t clear it up n’OW!)

In statements of the nature giving Approximations of weights,

As Originally typed by the (i)D(i)ot Typistsss…s

“~500 lbs animal”

(What a yutz I was!)

The proper representation of weight distribution amongst Urp’us (ooooooops) (Wild) Bear is in the range from 200 through 800 Plus/plus, (and Minus/Minus, as in “Mama don’t pass no ’Beach balls’”!) from wherein, the (i)T had derived the usage of the EK 50 rate.

Further misnomered in the advisor of the,

Originally stated/typed by the (i)T

“One third the distance to a safe exit”

FACT OF REALITY! The only true safe distance to your “safe exit”, is 0.0 feet, same in inches, and the reason why I so like the SI SI System, when converting in metric we simply multiply by ‘tens upon tens’ to find all “metrical values”, hence we know that 0.0 meters, in metric, will convert to 0.0 Kilometers as we have simply multiplied it by “tens upon tens”. (as requires, of course)

Further is the simplicity that all (wild) bears would prefer to live in Peace, that is there law, “leave me alone!” (unless you’re a member of the opposite sex, and a Bear too, {Ya, Ya! I know! and “it’s the ‘right time of the year’”, I heard already} then……….Shhhhhh!)


So It’s with the humblest of apologies that this (i)D(i)ot Typistssss….s salutes you! (insert “salute”, in (Wild) Bear) in your patience, awaiting the message from the bears, and bearing up under the bare facts of the ‘borne mis-bearing’ of the Bears tails, that I alone, (well, not really, there telepathic abilities exceed some of the humans I know, you know “That way”, actually really better then most of you, so they too have some responcibilities in all of this, after all they still haven’t even given me my retainer yet, so this is still 'al fresco' a writing, if "ya know what I mean") am responsible for!

Duly sign’ed on this day, (What day is it?) at this place here (right in my mind!) with the witness well thought of (hee hee) and all of the rest…..(insert legalease’s, SVP)

Ta ta.

 

[FZ+]

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
— James Madison

Indeed. We cannot forget the period they were living in, when guns were neccessary. But we don't happen to be living in that period.

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
---1796 George Washington, Farewell Address,

Then let us amend away! There is no such thing as the sanctity of the constitution. That was not intended.

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson

Except our situation is so far different that we do not know what is the probable spirit. The guns may very likely have been intended to defend against natives, or the British - hence security.

Mahatma Ghandi - Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

But history does not. And in this case Ghandi was wrong.

Adolph Hitler - This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! - April 15, 1935

This is largely irrelevant. Hitler supplanted that by making the majority gun owners members of the SA. Gun registration had little to do with it. Indeed, the proliferation of weapons in the 1930s was part of the reason why Hitler go into power. The violence was politically exploitable.

Josef Stalin - The United States should get rid of its militias. – 1933

Stalin also said that all men should be considered equal. He also said the League of Nations should deal with the threat from German. Judge by the statement, not by the speaker. What Stalin says may be wrong - but not because Stalin said it.

Sarah Brady to Howard Metzenbaum - Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. – 1984

Well duh. But it's not like we are in the middle of an invasion, and we must continue armed resistance. Also - those who would resist us... This does not equate to the people of the nation, but really more to the security forces, army etc.

Adolf Hitler - ... History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. - Edict of 18 March 1939

I assure you the US is hardly about to be conquered.

Samuel Adams - The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

And let us not forget the historical context in which this was written... And what about the people of the united states, who are not peaceable citizens? And regulation is not ruled out.

George Mason - To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them...

But disarming does not equal enslaving. Rather disarming is a method of enslavement, but enslavement does not necessary follow.

George Washington - The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good
George Washington - Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

"Do not separate text from historical background."

Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

"Do not separate text from historical background."
But still regulations are not denied. Only complete banning.

 

[damgo]

^^^ Damnit, FZ, your rationalism is interfering with my Founding Fathers hero-worship! Tommy Jefferson thought everyone should have a musket to defend his tree of liberty against the blood of patriots... or water it with tyrants... or something like that, but anyways I should get to keep my Mack-10, those are the principles this great nation is built upon!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Indeed. We cannot forget the period they were living in, when guns were neccessary. But we don't happen to be living in that period.
.

Weeeelll, some of us live in areas that still closely resemble the period that they were living in..lol. Where I live, and actually much of the area upstate from there, guns are preeeettty important. Particularly when dealing with wildlife, having no local police and let's not forget the many families who do indeed depend on that deer to get through the winter on.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Weeeelll, some of us live in areas that still closely resemble the period that they were living in..lol. Where I live, and actually much of the area upstate from there, guns are preeeettty important. Particularly when dealing with wildlife, having no local police and let's not forget the many families who do indeed depend on that deer to get through the winter on.

And, currently, the guns that you would need for those purposes are easy to get. The regulations on shotguns and long rifles is that the government get a heads up, and that the seller knows you aren't a convict. If you go to WalMart to get your oil changed and buy a rifle...your backround check may be done before the car is ready.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Alias
So I have this very important right to wear my family crest?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard(said).

Why would this right to wear my family's crest be so important that it had to be stated in the BOR?

Gimme a break Njorl. It's like a scene from Monty Python. Imagine a scene where the founding fathers are hashing out the Bill of Rights and John Cleese, while acting rather effeminate, shyly suggests from the back of the room, "And the right to wear a dress."

To say that they didn't mean "guns", they meant "a sign on your clothes" is preposterous.

Although I feel the point may have been stated a bit overzealously, I do agree that the right to bear arms must be interpreted as referring to possession of weapons. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose for the amendment is stated within the wording of the amendment itself. And I think we can all agree that the need for a military force to defend the country is not satisfied by insuring citizens the right to accessorize.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LURCH
Although I feel the point may have been stated a bit overzealously, I do agree that the right to bear arms must be interpreted as referring to possession of weapons. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose for the amendment is stated within the wording of the amendment itself. And I think we can all agree that the need for a military force to defend the country is not satisfied by insuring citizens the right to accessorize.

Personal ownership of guns is no longer required for a defensive military force either...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

This just in, there is an available (Wild) Bear, for the Autograph session, (Could you get him to sign my cheque while your at it) He told me he's in, What?? "Cluck and Pee?" Ohhhh so sorry my fault "Kluane NP", around 'fivish', (Bear 'time', no less) between "that tree" and "the mountain, over there", Ok I'll tell them all of that, yes I know there is still snow on the ground and you want to sleep, and me too I want to be left alone, till it's time, Yes, yes, you can go back to your snooze, or 'that' (I don't need to know about 'that' so please don't tell me!) whatever, have a nice Feed.

So he will be there, if you don't show, I guess we will all simply have to relinquish to the idea that I am actually their lawyer, notwithstanding (that's 'legalese') that they have yet to remit the aforementioned retainer, none the less God willing I will continue to act as such.

Till the next installment, the Ca(u)se for "The right of (Wild) Bear to Vote!" (...by Proxy, me!)


EDIT SP

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW GENIERE, all of those people that you quote, did any of them live in a world populated by 6.3 Billion people?, cause that figure does certainly, (my opinion) make a large difference!

 

[GENIERE]

No. They simply provided the foundation for a world capable of having 2,000,000,000 people enjoying life. The rest, not able to protect their rights, have a poor to meager existence. In fairness, it was probably the Brits who started the process hundreds of years earlier.

Regards

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by GENIERE
No. They simply provided the foundation for a world capable of having 2,000,000,000 people enjoying life. The rest, not able to protect their rights, have a poor to meager existence. In fairness, it was probably the Brits who started the process hundreds of years earlier.

Regards

Sounds like when they did it, "Everyone in the entire world was "enjoying their lives", as that is a total population number, that doesn't coincide with the reality of those times, either.

Nice thought though!