Bonjour Raphael,
Ca va? I can see how you might disagree with the American need to arm our civilians. The French roots of freedom and societal structure are very different from the American experience. From the time of the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire, the French have lived under a King. The King has had his edicts carried out by so-called 'nobles' who were placed above the 'peasantry' and his will enforced by 'knights' who would not hesitate to put an individual, a village, or resisting province to the sword. Yes, you now have a Republic, but 'egalite' has always eluded the French.
Our country, however, was born resisting tyranny. Our freedom was won by civilians with arms (and with French naval assistance, Thank you!). We have long understood that human nature is, as Lord Acton put it, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This applys espcially to governments, so the trick has always been to keep the Damocles Sword of an armed citizenry hanging over the bureaucrats' head.
Even as your Revolution was inspired by our own, you merely traded one tyrant for a committee of tyrants. In short, your government throughout history, has always been above the people. With the advent of Socialism in Europe, your population has largely accepted and demanded that the government remain responsible for the care, feeding and protection of the people. Witness the non-stop 'manifs' for government subsidies by farmers, by students, by any other class demanding their slice of the welfare state. In the USA, it HAD been that the populace tolerated the government, but since the introduction of stealth socialism in the 1930's there is a substantial parisitic class whose interest it is to vote themselves support.
But those who still rely on themselves for their own protection in the traditional manner realize that our government -- be they local police, on up to the Federal government -- refuse to assume the liability and responsibility for own own protection. About one third of Americans believe strongly in this manner. Another third seem to have no major interest in politics, while another third support tranfer payments and governmental intervention to their own benefit.
By no accident, it is in those 32-odd states where American citizens rely on their own defense that the citizen is safest against a predator- criminal class. The difference is arms held by the individual citizen.
Police are not enough for personal protection, but that is not the ultimate reason for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Our Second Amendment was not intended to protect arms for sport and protection against simple thugs. Arms reclassified for 'sporting purposes' have been used by tyrants like Charles II of England and Hitler to disarm the citizenry and to ensure the people could not cast off their oppressive regimes.
The greatest reason we have for personal arms is to defend against tyranny in government. It is the nature of government to aggrandize its own power and reduce threats against it gaining and maintaining that power. The biggest stumbling block to a potential tyrant in any nation is an armed citizenry. That is why the USA and Switzerland have long been havens from tyranny in the many Wars that have come and gone -- because the citizens there are armed.
You laugh smugly about how you will host your American counterpart and his weapon when the next invader comes. It will not be a new experience to either American or French. Twice before American arms have had to save France in its darkest hour. Your glorious Grand Armee was near collapse against the Kaisers' troops, saved by the massive infusion of British and American soldiers. No, you could not rely on your government for protection then.
Nor, when the Blitzkrieg made short work of the Maginot Line and the Panzers blasted their way through Arras and other places, could you rely on the Government for your protection. In fact the watch-cry of the Government troops were "sauve qui peut!" ('Save yourselves!'). The collective French penance was to be subjected to a daily victory parade of Nazi troops down the Champs Elysees and by the Arc de Triomph. The major contribution the French made in WWII were Partisans and the Maqui. Again, they relied on arms air-dropped to them by the Americans and Brits. If you had had your own, you could have bogged the Wehrmacht down in 1940 rather than have to endure four years of Nazi occupation and a collaborationist Vichy 'government.'
After two such experiences in such a short space of time, I would expect some sort of learning curve -- such as -- this being disarmed DOESN'T WORK! Professor Rummel's extensive research into the atrocity of 'democide' death by government, estimates that between 170 million to 300 million civilians have been slaughtered by by national or occupying governments. In each case, the precusor was the disarming of the civilian population.
Think of it this way, if each European nation were to organize itself like the Swiss -- each able-bodied man armed and ordered to fight to the last cartridge, would there be as great a need for the American nuclear umbrella? Now that the Americans are withdrawing both Conventional and Nuclear deterrents, and the Russians have a former KGB agent (Putin) at their helm, don't you think an armed Europe of Switzerlands would serve as a powerful deterrent against possible Neo-Soviet (or combined Arab) attack? Hitler did not attack Switzerland for a very good reason.
I may not have convinced you. It takes a long time to sway someone from their centrally-held beliefs, and sometimes at the cost of terrific trauma. I am certain of one thing however. As long as Americans are armed, they will be free. If that ever changes, then France has lost all hope -- for who will there be then to save you?
In Liberty,
Rick V.
Jurist
Raphael Cancan <cancan@boursorama.com>
To: alan@bloomfieldpress.com
> Hello Alan
> I'm french and I disagree your arguments concerning the
> noble uses of firearms.
> The police is here for your safety, the defense. You don't
> need any arm. From whom do you want to be protected ?
> Guarding our borders ??? let me laugh, you don't have any
> .. Canada ??? ha ha ha, Mexico ?? there is no risk, you
> have the best army in the world you don't need handguns.
> Helping our allies!!! Thank you, if you come at home to
> defend us against Russia ( or someone else) i'll prepare a
> bed for you, i can put you up for the night you and your
> shotgun...
> Commerce and employement ?? I'm studying economy,i can tell
> if you don't use the 2.3 billion $ in buying firearms,
> you'll buy something else and the result will be the same
> for the economy.
> Collecting, sport, olympic competition ... DO YOU NEED 250
> M handguns for that ?
> I can tell you, if you have problems of violence it is
> because of your arms. Why do you fear to be attacked,
> because you fear people with arms, so you buy one and if
> everybody does the same, it is clear some accidents occur
> and people use their gun.
> You will tell me of culture and constitution, OK that's
> right but why not change it ?
>
> I'm sure you'll respond if you have time because i'll be
> very interested to have a response. I don't know much about
> the US and i can't help thinking this story of guns is
> really stupid. You maybe can tell me more about it.
>
> Raphael (Paris)
>
> _______________________________________________
> La bourse en direct - http://www.boursorama.com
-- http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/iurist