Assault weapons ban lifted...good thing?

Ahh, did you not look up the crime stats for "assult rifles" in the US before you went off on semi-auto rifles? I do not think that semi-auto rifles are the problem, its illegally obtained handguns. Also, Germany and the US are 2 different countries. In the UNITED STATES, I would gladly take more crime for more civil liberty. There are tradeoffs for every decision, and I hope the US takes more steps to prosecute those that are violating the law, as opposed to taking the easier route and blaming an item for the crime of a person. What you said about Germany's hunting idea just makes me not ever want to leave the US because I value (legal) personal freedom too much.

I have noticed that in the US, people take too much time, energy, and pleasure trying to tell the next person what to do, how to think, where to do it, and why. If people spent that time on being constructive and minding their own stinking business, the world would be a better place. All of those soccer moms who drive huge SUV's have a larger impact on our world than all the gun owners combined, yet if I told them that they could not drive those behemouths, because I do not like the pollution that they create, they would buy a contract on my life. Everyone likes telling others what to do, but they hate it when the other people do the same to them. Does the gun control we have in place work? I believe that a background check is a good idea, because it keeps felons from buying from law abiding gun dealers. Do I think it is the solution, no. Do I believe that penalizing Joe Law Abiding citizen something because criminals do not abide by the law, ABSOLUTLY NOT!

Germany is not the United States!


Sig
do u have the right to say "i want everyone driving a car near me having a driving license." i'd say: " hack yea, dude, of course you have the right to, even if driving without license works quite well for others, you still have the right to complain!!!"
Click to expand...

The reason that the government and you can requre people to possess a drivers liscense in order to operate a vehicle on public roads is.........The government provides the roads, and driving on public roads is a privliage. Gun ownership is not a privliage in the US, its a right . That said, anyone can operate a privatly owned vehicle on private property without any liscense at all. On my private property, I could require that all people pass a drug screen, breathalizer test, sign a waiver of liability, and have their photo taken, and that would be legal, because I have the right to deny entry/use of my property just like the government does with public roads.
 
Sig-Fan wrote:

@abelew
i certainly dont have a problem with assaultrifles, since alan explained me about the high barriers in order to get them. i just think, that it would be good thing, if you had some barriers about obtaining (is this the right word?) regular semis...

@alan, before you start ingnoring this thread, please answer me, why these conversion kits are sold, if you commit a crime by installing it? noone would buy one of these things just to look at the gun parts.

I have no answer to your question concerning why these so-called "conversion kits" are sold other than the following. Someone thinks that they can make money selling them. At one time, I believe that the law has since been changed, selling these kits was legal, whether or not they actually worked. INSTALLING THE KIT INTO A FIREARM WASN'T, UNLESS THE CONVERSION WAS REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, as mentioned earlier. There might also have been problems with STATE LAW, as I had mentioned earlier too. Other than this, some Americans do all manner of really stupid things, just as I'm certain do some Germans. Add in, while we are at it, the British, the French, the Dutch and whomever else you can think of. They all do some really stupid things, or at least some of them do.

Another of your questions dealt with restrictions on "regular semis", if I underestood it. As I mentioned earlier, generally speaking, conviction for a felony PERMANENTLY removes the individuals right to own, possess, purchase or use either firearms or ammunition. This is FEDERAL LAW, and is applicable in all 50 states.

Sig-Fan, you also wrote the following:

my idea of loony is someone, whose psychologist said that he is one. but seriously...loonies are people who tried to kill themselves, who have to different personalities (just like in fight club), people with paranoia...oh sorry, according to michael moore the majority of the us citizens have paranoia

On this, three observations:

1. I don't know about Germany, but in this country, neither psychologists nor phychiatrists can definitively tell who is "loony" before the fact, that is absent specific evidence, and observation, and even then the "experts" do not always agree. Also, in the U.S. people who have undergone involuntary commitment to a mental institute can be barred from the purchase of arms.

2. I did not know that Michael Moore had credintials in either psycology or psychiatry. I had thought that his field was the writing of books and film making.

3. Re his evaluation of the mental health of "the majority of Americans", given that I'm not really familiar with his work, did he include himself in that characterization of Americans, the one that claimed that "the majority of Americans have paranoia"? By the way, I think that the correct form of the phrase would be ARE PARANOID, or suffer from paranoia. This last is a minor point though, as English is not your native language.
 
INSTALLING THE KIT INTO A FIREARM WASN'T, UNLESS THE CONVERSION WAS REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Click to expand...

Are they actually "conversion" kits or are they "parts" kits? It is perfectly legal for a person that owns a registered machinegun to order spare parts for that gun. It is perfectly legal for a person that does not own a gun that the "parts" will fit in to own the parts. However, it is a violation of federal law to merely possess the full auto parts and a firearm they will function in, regardless of whether or not they are ever installed in the firearm.
 
hi hk and allan,

@hk in germany you can buy a semi glock 17. as some of you know there the full auto glock 18, which differs from the glock 17 just by a different fireswitch/selector. you are allowed to own this switch and you are allowed to have a glock (if u have the permission for guns). but its not legal to intall the switch! but still people pay 300euros for this useless piece of metal...as u see, there are stupid germans as well ;)

@alan
MM reffered to the militia, when he talked about the americans suffering under paranoia (thanks for correcting me). in the movie you could see some guys and a soccer mom, handling with all kinds of firearms while trying to convince MM of the necessity of a militia in the us.
 
Germany

In response to the larger number of firearms accidents in the USA, I do not believe that it is training or safety that is the difference. You have to figure in some other variables. As Germany is about the size of Texas there are understandably few options for hunting also the population density is high. In the US there are just a huge number more guns period. Then factor in that we use them for sport more than any other country in the world because we have more ranges, more hunting land, more forests. Germany probably has a lot less car crashes per capita also because the average german doesnt drive A suburban a pickup and one or two cars like many US families. We don't use mass transit just like we don't leave the firearms to our police here.
 
I noticed Sig completly stopped arguing the rights/privilage thingy :)

That said, I do not wish to be misunderstood here. The only way to compare Germany to the United States is to extrapolate the number of gun accident per person.

I did some basic math.

As far as I could tell (based on quick net search)
Germany had 82,424,609 people in 2004.
United States had 294,451,983 in 2004.

Now, as I understand it, if you divide the number of people by the number of gun accidents, you will find out who has a higher accident per person by looking at who has the lower number (because 1 accident per 10 people is more accident than 1 crime per 100)

Germany 1 gun accident per 2587419
US 1 gun accident per 302312

Now you may think that this is a higher rate of accident, and it is. But to get a truly accurate number, one would have to look up gun ownership per person in the united states, and germany and then compare those numbers. I imagine that the US accident rate would be on par or less than that of Germany. Just because the actual number is higher, does not mean that the accident per person per gun rate is higher also. True, more guns = more accidents. More people = more statistical diseases per person, more cars=more accidents per person. Quoting statistics can only bring you so far in an arguement such as this, because accident, crime, whatever stats can not show that Germany is not the United States based on their respective laws. Sure its easy for one to say "oh my god, the united states is a gun totin, hillbilly, crime pit." But in the end Sig, do you live in Germany or the United States. If you do not live, nor are a citizen of the United States, then what are you doing going around saying we are wrong. Maybe we just do things differently? Is that ok with you?
 
Abe, there is more to it than that. What is the rate of gun accidents in German-Americans living in America?

If you look at US gun related crimes and accidents you have to factor in the fact that a significant minority of US population is entirely different tempermentally from Germans. In my state there is one county which is about 60% German-American and they happen to be one of the wealthiest counties, with the lowest crime rate. On the other hand there is a county with 55% African-American and they are number one in gun related crime and accidents. Another county with 80+/ percent Scots-Irish has the highest suicide rate in the state.
 
SIG-Fan wrote in his latest:

hi,
ok i'd say things are different, not worse neither better

From where I sit in all this, that sounds like the beginning of understanding.

Sig-Fan also offered:
MM reffered to the militia, when he talked about the americans suffering under paranoia (thanks for correcting me). in the movie you could see some guys and a soccer mom, handling with all kinds of firearms while trying to convince MM of the necessity of a militia in the us.

I believe that the thing should read, "suffering from paranoia", or "suffering paranoia", rather than "suffering under paronia". English, it has been noted, is often a difficult language for foreigners to grasp. Keep trying.

It is also often difficult to gain an understanding of other cultures. It often turns out that the effort is worth while though, especially if you desire to communicate with members of that "other" culture. By the way, that situation you depicted with the Glock 18, which I had heard of, the ownership of uninstalled selector switch, is somewhat similar to that business of "conversion kits" you wrote of earlier. Once again, I note that the laws in Germany and the laws in the U.S. are different.

By the way, the German language has pecularities of it's own, especialy TECHNICAL GERMAN, as with as I recall, the SINGLE WORD that described the engine in some Porshe automobiles. Please, once again, bear with me re my spelling of German words. The engine would be described, in English, as a double overhead cam, gasoline engine. In a German Auto magazine I once came upon, it came out as follows. Frieknockingwheelerinluftbenzinemeutur. It was all quite literal, but strange to both the eye and the ear, at least it was the first time. When one thought about it a little, it did make sense.
 
Thanks, someone finially said what I was trying to pass on, in a much more effective manner. :D

United states: 1
Germany: 0
:eek: :eek: :D
 
SigFan, I have a different approach to answering your questions.

The answer is YES, some lives would be saved if people in the U.S. if people had to pass safety tests before owning guns or hunting. YES, there are social costs associated with the fundamental, Constitutionally-explicit, RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS that we in the U.S. have. YES, YES, YES, you are RIGHT! So the question is, why then do we do it? Why do we accept social costs in order to have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms (which in turn prohibits a "prior restraint" on such a fundamental right - that would include any kind of safety test). Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives? There's a very good answer to that, and to understand it, you have to look at the BIG HISTORICAL picture. The answer, in the end, is that in the long run, having a fundamental right to keep and bear firearms without government restrictions SAVES MORE LIVES THAN IT TAKES. It saves lives by preventing tyranny and oppression of dictators and tyrants who would ignore the Constitution and enslave or at least oppress its people and trample on fundamental human rights, as has happen so many times over and over and over again throughout history, notably in the late 30s and early 40s in Deutchland, and WILL HAPPEN again. The RBKA, if allowed to be infringed in the slightest, will continually be more and more and more infringed, due to the inevitable slippery slope idea, until there is NO right, and all guns are banned. Look at history, and you will come to realize that today, you are required to pass a test to own a gun there, but it's just a matter of time before certain guns and then all guns are banned - then guess what, you will then have NO right of self-defense, either against criminals, or against an oppressive tyrant or dictator. The "founding fathers" of this country, 1776-1791 time frame, in the wake of extreme oppression under the King's rule in ol' merry England, KNEW THIS - they had the foresight to KNOW that the people in a democracy (or democratic republic) would eventually infringe and ultimately take away the RKBA from themselves, under a majority rule system, because of knee-jerk fear reactions, making the country ripe for takever by a king (i.e. a dictator). Since the KNEW that the "sheeple", if you will, would eliminate their own RKBA, and since the KNEW that the RKBA was essential to the long-term survival of the democracy, they knew that they must put this protection into the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which requires a 2/3rds Senate and 3/4ths state ratification to repeal or amend in any way - a "supermajority", not a simple majority. They were quite wise, as history has shown time and again, since then, that the legislatures are CONSTANTLY seeking to further erode, amend, and infringe the RKBA - it is only the people, groups like the NRA, and ultimately the 2nd amendment and the courts that have fought to preserve it (and ultimately would be the gun-owning citizens themselves, in the event that the worse case happens - that the constitution is ignored). Mark my words - 40 years from now, you won't be owning any Sig pistol in Germany, but we will in the US. It will happen quite incrementally - higher fees, this type gun banned, that type gun banned; eventually rimfires only, and then one day, no guns. Just give your kneejerk legislators time, and they will modify your ability to even own a gun completely out of existence. Bottom line, on a big-picture cost/benefit analysis, the long-term benefit of survival of democracy (and thus the averting of a bloody revolution) SAVES far more lives than the lack of prior restraints (such as safety tests) on the RKBA INFLICTS, in the long run, when you take the *inevitable* slippery slope into account. The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is quite unique, in that it's the ONE fundamental right within the bill of rights, that if taken away, prevents the very ability to restore the right under the "doomsday" idea of the right to begin with. Since it's the one right that not only protects all others, but also if infringed, has lost its ability to restore itself and all others (speech, etc.), then it must be fought for steadfastly and vigilantly when infringed. It must also be preserved with force and violence immediately, if a disarmament is ever actually sought to be enforced by the gov't, because otherswise, the ability to mount a revolt with arms will itself be taken away, from successful disarmament enforcement (or at the very least disarmament severely hampers a revolt and takes much, much longer under more suffering to oust the tyrant, who have a strong tendencey to hold power when his (her?) people are disarmed). So, bottom line, the RKBA is about AVOIDING A BLOODY REVOLUTION and PRESERVING THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and avoiding scenarios like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein from ever happening here. It's about saving lives in the long run, and avoiding suffering and human rights violation under a tyrannical and/or dictatorial regime. From a big-picture cost-benefit anaylsis, if you look at history, and tyrants' inevitable inclination AND ability to become dictators, it makes a lot of sense - a few lives lost here and there due to inadequate training or general availability of guns, is in fact, well worth not having tens of millions murdered by their own gov'ts, such as Stalin and Hitler did. The harsh reality is, a few dead people is a better thing than millions upon millions of dead people, along with the lost of freedom accompanied therewith, until a democracy is restored. THAT, my friends, is what the RKBA is about.
 
FirstFreedon:

The following is a short excerpt from your interesting exposition.



Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives?


Unfortunately, "we" have already accepted quite significant restrictions on RKBA, which was RECOGNIZED not created in or by The Constitution and It's first 10 amendments.

As to that business of "if it only saved one life", which I note has NOT fooled you, there has yet, so far as I'm aware, been a showing that it would save that often mentioned "one life".
 
Alan, you misunderstood entirely that portion of the post.

When I said

Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives?
Click to expand...

I was stating that as a hypothetical question which is or may be posed by the other side. Talking to myself. Playing devil's advocate. As in:

"Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives, you might ask of me?"

Oh nevermind. I see that you understand that fact; that you're just pointing out that we've already gone down the road of significant restrictions ourselves. Yes, I know that of course, and excellent point. I was just keeping things simple for our foreign friend - and keeping a little bit theoretical/idealistic of how it SHOULD be, particularly in light of his undoubtedly skewed view of how the US of A is in its gun laws - I perceive Europeans to perceive us as basically wild west shootouts - no gun laws at all - nothing could be further from the truth of course, and most if not all of the 20,000 + federal, state, and local gun laws on the books are unconstitutionally violative of the 2A, but I was thinking hypothetically, in an ideal world, how the US WOULD BE, and hopefully WILL BE AGAIN someday, a TRUE beacon of the light of pretty much unfettered freedom vis a vis gun rights. I can be optimistic in light of the recent pendulum swinging back on gun issues it seems with things like CCW in 31 states - I attribute most of the pendulum swinging back in the US due to (1) the internet spreading truth about guns and gun rights, and (2) the overwhelming success of CCW laws, and the impeccable social science that shows that they save lives and reduce violent crimes across the board.

P.S. "Exposition" ===> Euphamism for "Rant" - I like it - thanks! :)
 
FirstFreedom:

It was quite a while back, actually 1970, when I worked in Great Britain and as they described it, "on the continent" also, however despite all the follderol that one heard about British gun laws, they were "sticky" then and are MUCH worse now, it turned out that a couple of guys at the office, I was "visiting" Stone and Webster in London, were shooters, full bore, as they called it, what we would describe as High Power. They used to compete at Bisley, where believe it or not, the British found that the old .303 Lee Enfield rifles performed quite well at LONG RANGE. Actually I went out to Bisley one day, it wasn't far from London, and the people there at the British Rifle Association were kind enough to lend my a Lee Enfield rifle along with a couple of boxes of ammunition. Any unfired ammunition had to be turned in, fired cases too, as I was told. Anyhow, I shot at Bisley, who ducked every time.

Anyhow, during the course of conversation, the subject of silencers, mufflers as the Brits described them, came up. They all insisted that one could purchase one, through the mail, for less than $10 US, at the time in the UK, and were rather surprised when I described all the fuss and fury involved in obtaining a silencer here. One guy went so far as to politely inquire as to whether "you Americans had mufflers on your cars", and absolutely could not begin to understand why we did not take quite reasonable steps to control, spelled reduce, the noise of gun fire at shooting ranges.

Old story about the differences between Americans and British is that the two groups are separated by a common language. Might be true too. Anyhow, assuming that you have seen or heard about this lengthy DOJ opinion on The Individuals Right To Keep and Bear Arms, do you think that same might prove interesting to our German correspondent? No problem e-mailing a link.
 
hey fellas,
i just read freedoms posts. you've got some interesting points. also its hypothetical, i dont believe that guns could ever stop an established dictatorship. in iraq the civilian had guns, still saddam never got shot.
also hitler, he had no problem to establish himself in politics and in increasing his influence. this was possible not because of the few guns among the civilians, no. But because the people were really obsessed of him. in my oppinion, it was bull**** when after the war most of the germans said, they havent been nazis. of course the were!(statics show that he was extremly popular especially in 1936/37 after olymic games and while presenting the new VW) just a few were against the system, and even less dared to fight against the system. same thing in france, today many frenchis tell about their ancestors paricipating in the "resitance". also BS. just a few guys out of millions belonged to the resitance...
however the point of my post is, that guns wont help you to get rid of an diktator, because they are prepared to situations like assasinations (as far as i know saddam had about 5 or 6 doubles/twins, [argh you know what i mean, someone who looks similar to him], who replaced him during official things, so he could not get killed during official speeches ect). (just remember saddam, who could move in iraq several weeks without beeing discovered by the armed forces...)

@alan GB s-ucks, its just a bad place to go to. they hate us (germans), weather su..., food su..., girls are ugly, gun laws su.., ...damn, gb is just a bad place :D
but to be more serious, the newest changes in GB laws are really stupid. the brits aren't allowed to carry anything for selfdefense, not even knives or gas pistols...

what i else wantet to mention, today i shot a Desert Eagle in .44 and i think this gun really rules! i should get one next year, maybe a second hand specimen of a mark VII
 
GB can do what they want, so can the rest of the world. I do not own guns because I am afraid my gvt will come after me, I own guns for the pleasure of shooting, and preventing some skell from walking in my front door, wielding a piece of pipe he found in the ally, and threatening me and my wife. Same reason I own a large (read 80 lb) dog. It's not fear, I hve never been robbed, mugged, or assulted (im 6'3" 210 lb and in shape). I just believe that taking precautions before something happens is better than trying to stop it while its happening. Why do people keep spare tires in their cars? Germans may not RKBA, but I do, and I am going to use that right to the best of my ability, within the current law. It's not my place to denounce other countrie's policies, etc. It is my business if it is America, as it is My country (read: Democracy vs. Socialism). GB and America have different crime problems, and have thought up different solutions. I just won't ever live there.
 
Sig-Fan:

Re GB, the weather did leave a lot to be desired, especially in winter, when it got quite cold, and central heating was uncommon. This goes back quite a few years. Whiskey was good, I like scotch, and I enjoyed English beer. Some of the German festival brews were quite good also, but generally I leaned toward the English beers.

Re the grls I saw, as I remember, they were no uglier than girls one saw in most places, some were quite pretty, some just passable, most fell between the extremes.

As for the British "hating" Germans, perhaps some do, hatred is uaually an acquired feeling, and some of the older Brits have the most definitely unpleasant recollections of Germany and things German.

When we first visited GB, we found resturant food, in many cases, left a lot to be desired. On later trips, we made 3 or so, it had seemed that resturant cooking had improved.

As to their gun laws, they do leave a lot to be desired, from my point of view, but then from what I've heard about German firearms law, I don't think much of them either. As has been noted earlier, different countries, different experiences, different history and different traditions.

By the way, yesterday, I sent to your e-mail address, a link to a lengthy legal opinion issued by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The opinion made a quite strong presentation in support of THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, as recognized by our national constitution.

If it does not get to you, let me know and I will resend. If it does, and you have the time to read through it, let me know how it strikes you, that is to say, what you think of it.

As for the Desert Eagle in 44 Magnum, an interesting piece. I've handled a couple of them, and fired a few rounds. These pistols strike me as overly large and heavy, impractical for carry, though for handgun hunting and or specialized target shooting, I suppose that they would serve. I prefer the Government Model in 45 ACP, the Star Model 30m or the Browning Hi-Power, the latter two in 9mm Parabellum. I shoot all three in regular outdoor competition, during spring, summer and fall. As a personal defense weapon, I usually carry the 9mm Makerov, Russian made model. Not as nicely finished as some East German examples I've seen, but functionally, excellent. I've fired more than 8000 rounds through mine, mostly handloads, as well as some "factory loads", without failures of any sort, save for some Chinese made surplus ammunition that had been improperly manufactured, no flash holes in the cartridge case, and a couple of CCI brand cartridges, that had bad primers. That sort of thing is unusual, though it can happen.

Happy holidays.
 
hi alan,
i've been once in London, but just for changing the flight, when i went from washington to london, then from london to frankfurt. during the two hours it was raining... :rolleyes:

well,
the thing about the food, the politeness, ect. is mainly what i've heared by some friends who just went there this summer. for example they have been called nazis, ect. for no reason by other teenagers, i mean where is the point of this. one of my teachers told me, that he went to GB with his class two years ago, some of his students got beaten up. i dont think this happens here in germany with visitors. for myself and my friends we never complain about the brits or the americans, although they never speak any german while they stay in this country. same thing with us soldiers stationed here in darmstadt.

about the de:
no this gun isn't cerainly supposed for selfdefense, but its just a fun thing to shot with...espetially with a red dot sight (is that how you call it?) the german name would be Rot Punkt Visier.
 
America is definatly a unique place. People have prejudices, which is wrong, but within their rights.....and as dismayed as I am about some people's ignorance, I still have to say I support their right to be prejudiced, as long as thats as far as it goes (meaning they do not cause others harm/etc). If I say they are wrong, and the GVT should punish them for free speech, then I am wrong. Freedom means putting up with a few issues. I guarentee in China, not many people bad-mouth the GVT, but would you want to live there? There are trade-offs for everything, and I willingly trade some safty and criticism for my freedoms. This is my choice, and if any Americans do not like the freedoms that they are granted, they need to go be a citizen of some other country who will tell them what to eat, where to eat it, where to live, how much everyone makes, what to say, what not to say, where to work, etc.

On the language thing....The most prevalent language spoken in the world is English. It is very difficult to be fluent in both english and german. Also, everywhere in the United States 99% of people speak english. In Europe however, there are many different languages that one might have an interest in picking up, if they wish to travel. This may account for the language thing. I took german when I was in school, but had trouble pronouncing the hard syllables of some of the words. Neat language, I just do not have the head for forign language. I have always liked Germany, and I don't mean to insult you our your country. I become rather passionate about my rights, to a fault.
 
Sig-Fan:

The red dot sights are called Aim Point sights in the U.S., I believe that is a trade or brand name, as similar sights might also come under dfferent names.

As for the problems your friends had, I'm almost 72 years of age, however it seems to me that teenagers often are pains in the ass. This might well be unfair to some teenagers, while it could well be overly kind to others.

As to racial and or national origin problems, one finds that all over. It is my understanding that from time to time, it comes up in Germany too, sometimes with Neo-Nazis, sometimes with other political extremists. Who knows, but that the world would be a lovely place, if one could only remove the people.

Regarding language, you are problably correct about Americans tending not to speak "foreign languages". For myself, I speak or at one time spoke a bit of French, some German and Spanish. I did not speak these languages at all well, however I could often make myself understood, more or less that is. I had enough language for "simple matters". Of course, America is a lot larger than many European nations, and rightly or wrongly, in most cases, our schools do not stress foreign languages. In Holland, I worked with some Englishmen, one of whom had a Dutch girlfriend, who worked in the travel agency business. She allowed that she was fluent in 5 or 6 languages, and that "she could find her way to the loo in two or three others". Of course, not all that many years ago, there were major riots over language in Belgium, where one part of the country was mostly Catholic and French speaking, while the other part was largely Protestant and Flemish speaking. They had to call out regular troops, the police could not handle it. Funny thing was that the king was called King of The Belgians, rather than The King of Belgium. Think about that for a moment.

For myself, I never could understand how or why the Europeans have riots over a ball game (soccor). Hardly seems worth the effort, but then soccor is not played much in the U.S. I was once told that the thing to do was to at least learn how to say please and thank you, in the language of the country you happened to be in. It usually didn't matter that your pronunciation might be terrible, for usually people would understand, and appreciate even small efforts on the part of visitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top