Re: Not OT: The little *** racist Hussein Obama

Richard F. Sayage wrote:
I've had knives pulled on me a few times, Richard. There was no mistaking their intent. One memorable time for me was in high school at New Utrecht HS in Brooklyn. Time of the bussing and forced racial integration. Bloody fights, protests, melees, Mafia parents and tough black kids, etc...

Personally, I could have cared less....just wanted to go to school. Walked in on 3 bad asses playin' dice in one of the back corridors to the gym. They were real nice. Offered to swiss cheese me if I didn't say a word or give a *** what they were doing. Plain and simple...here's a white boy....we is gonna have some fun and some vengeance. I was unarmed except with a heavy math text book. It wasn't pretty. I still have a scar from it on my left arm and I'm lucky to have that.

Maybe it's different in TX by the border...you would know. But in Brooklyn....sorry...someone's gonna die. Sometimes more than one.

Rich


New Utrecht--ain't that in Holland?

Steve


"Richard Jernigan" <rnjernigan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:6d8f264a-f503-46ff-83c9-6708fc1618c4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Miguel de Maria wrote:

"Whatever the solution may be, it does not lie among the practices of
those countries that share a culture, but one with a multitude of
geographic, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic variables."

I agree wholeheartedly. I mentined the uniformity of Swiss and
Japanese culture intending to highlight their contrast to us.

As I understand it, the border minutemen do not take the law into
their own hands. They would be in serious trouble with the law if they
did--I've known a few Texas lawmen. The minutemen conduct themselves
as the eyes and ears of an understaffed Border Patrol, so they don't
need cruise missiles. Whether the Border Patrol ought to keep people
out by force is a different issue. No doubt some of the minutemen are
motivated by racial prejudice. Those are reprehensible.

My family in south Texas have been major employers of illegal aliens
for the entire past century. I have known many, and have the greatest
respect for the integrity and work ethic of the great majority of
them.

My 91-year old aunt lives by herself in the country. Her house has
been robbed more than once by people walking from the border toward
San Antonio. When asked if she resented it, she said she resented the
ones who took her late husband's shotgun. It was a memento of him, but
she got another one. As for the ones who took only food, clothing and
bedding, she said she felt sorry for them.

"After all, they worked for us all those years, did a good job, and
didn't cause trouble. They don't bother me. They only come around when
they know I'm gone." A wise policy,

Many of her neighbors feel threatened. They favor the minutemen. This
is just a splinter of a large and complex issue, which divides the
country.

When I was a boy in San Antonio, knife fights were common. They
weren't meant to be deadly. When they were it was usually an accident,
or the result of someone losing their temper. Knife fights were meant
to settle who was braver. But if someone pulled a knife on an armed
gringo, the gringo would likely have taken it as a mortal threat, and
killed them. A cultural misunderstanding on the part of both.

Under the law in every state, if someone attacks you with sufficient
force to kill or cause serious bodily harm to you or your family, you
are entitled to kill the attacker. There are nuances. In some states
you are required to make every effort to flee. In Florida you are
entitled to stand your ground. This is not a pleasant subject, nor one
that is likely to be discussed coolly. But it has been an element of
human nature for as long as we have existed, and it is part of the
common law from which our system descends.

A close relative is a lawyer who has been Assistant Attorney General
of Texas, Senior Staff Attorney on the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, and is now a District Attorney in one of Texas' major
metropolitan areas. She carries a handgun for protection and is
competent in its use. I'm glad she does. If she were unarmed and
attacked with murderous intent by a big man with a baseball bat, she
would likely lose her life. Carrying a pistol, she would likely
survive.

Those who insist on the right to keep and bear arms often cite two
reasons. One is self defense. Criminals still have firearms in Britain
and Australia. Law abiding citizens are defenseless against them.
People still commit suicide and attack one another by the available
means.

Academically respectable statistical studies have concluded that in
America the increased presence of armed citizens reduces violent
crime. Of course these studies have been attacked. Almost any
sociological study is open to attack over the means used to "control"
for a variety of parameters. I'm an expert in statistics, but not in
sociology, so I can't evaluate whether the "controls" skew the
results. But I am unaware of any study that shows a significant
increase in gun violence when law-abiding citizens are authorized to
go armed.

Another reason defenders of the 2nd Amendment cite is the right to
rebel against an unjust government and to defend against invaders. It
may seem unlikely that rebellion will be required. It may seem
unlikely that armed citizens would prevail in either case. That is,
unless you had fought in Vietnam and had your *** kicked by a lightly
armed inferior force.

As for rebellion, on one side of my family they foresaw the Revolution
before 1750. Being loyal to the King and British government, they
moved to Nova Scotia from the town they founded in New England.
Eventually they played a major role in uniting Canada into its present
form. On another side, four ancestors were officers under General
Washington. Which of them was right? I don't propose to call either
bunch wrong. War is one of the greatest evils devised by mankind. But
on some occasions it is the only honorable course.To be clear, I'd say
America is batting no better than .500 on the honorable side for wars
and rebellions both.

In my lifetime the US has changed radically. It is vastly more
populous, urbanized and diverse. Every time I return to the US from my
tropical island home, I am more strongly struck by these changes. I
plan to return to Texas fairly soon to enjoy the company of family and
friends in retirement. Is the 2nd Amendment obsolete? I don't rule out
the possibility. But the difficulty of disarming a traditionally armed
public is as great as that of dislodging the 12-million illegal
immigrants among us. I certainly don't think conducting a war against
12-million residents of the US is a productive path. I have my doubts
whether disarming the country is practical, or even a good idea. I
might change my mind when I see how things are now. I've changed it
before.

But one serious impediment to disarming America is that a large number
of people aren't going to change their minds. Any attempt will further
divide rather than unite, with the prospect of success very dim at
best.

I was impressed month before last when I visited my Ukrainian friend
in Washington. I complained of East Coast rudeness. She said that
American rudeness was sweetness and light compared to Ukrainian or
Russian manners. And in America, she said, if you work hard, get an
educations, keep your nose clean, you will very likely be rewarded for
your efforts, sooner or later. A great contrast to the evils of the
Soviet Union where she grew up, or the present state of the Ukraine.

We were walking from the Natural History Museum past the Archives,
which were closed on Sunday. I suggested she go in sometime to see the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

"Really, I can do that?"

"Yes."

"I would love to!"

This set me off on the Founding Fathers. I told her of Washington
refusing the monarchy proposed by a group of his officers after the
war. When he rose to read his speech, they saw him put on glasses for
the first time.

"Gentlemen, I have grown old in your serrvice," he said. Hardened
veterans of years of warfare wept.

Finally, after a long life of thinking about them, and prompted by my
friend's buoyancy of spirit, I realized one quality the Founding
Fathers had in common, that contributed so strongly to their
greatness. They all had profound insight into human nature, but none
of them was cynical. And none was foreign to the spirit of compromise.

RNJ



.

Quantcast