You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
"However, I think this could be done better without any guns. "
2007-11-11
Posted by:Seafarious

#9  I guess she wanted the children to believe the Civil war was fought without firearms. Some of the parents were really PO'd when they found out. They weren't asked their opinion about it. It was a dictate.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-11-11 16:46  

#8  At a Civil War Reenactment last weekend we had planned on a School Program Day on Friday but the Sullivan County School Superintendant refused to let any children come because there were guns there.

Deac, that is so fucked up on so many levels I barely know where to begin. What better way for children to understand about guns than to witness a large assembly of adults displaying and carrying them in a safe and responsible manner?

This is akin to arguing that sex education classes promote teen pregnancy. Children who do not get a chance to see how firearms can be managed properly will be among those most likely to mismanage one themselves should the opportunity arise. The superintendent may as well argue that driver education classes promotes more accidents for teens. What a stupid git.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-11-11 15:42  

#7  Her attitude doesn't surprise me. At a Civil War Reenactment last weekend we had planned on a School Program Day on Friday but the Sullivan County School Superintendant refused to let any children come because there were guns there. This is the first time in 11 years of reenacting a school system has refused our offer of a program. This is in East Tennessee where damn near everybody has guns.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-11-11 14:56  

#6  And the post-Christian / post-Western leftists.
Posted by: lotp   2007-11-11 11:42  

#5  "Health and Safety" in the UK so far this year has been given as the reason to:

1. Ban at least one town's firemen from using their ladders to put up Christmas lights in a shopping district;

2. Ban fireworks and bonfires on Guy Fawkes' Day in Guy Fawkes' hometown; and,

3. Attempt to ban rifles and (a little further down in the article linked here) poppies on Rememberance / Armistice / Veterans Day.

What do all of these occasions have in common? They are important to a sense of shared heritage, history and sovereignty, also a sense of shared obligation to each other. I'd also like to add that the law-abiding population of the United Kingdoms have been effectively stripped of their arms.

And if Christmas is a little duller and boring this year, well that's just fine with Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Bakribots.
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-11-11 10:51  

#4  They banned the cannon because of "health and safety" ?

Posted by: john frum   2007-11-11 08:59  

#3  But it was all very civilised

Which of course is what REALLY matters. [/sarc]
Posted by: lotp   2007-11-11 07:00  

#2  He said: "Miss Beach is a pacifist and a stupid bint and felt unhappy about the Rifles marching with guns through the town. But she received absolutely no support.

"Members of all parties all feel that this is a time to support our armed forces.


"We need them and they do an impossibly difficult job, laying down their lives for the rest of us. I felt this would be undermining them. But it was all very civilised, and Miss Beach accepted the views of the majority."


Posted by: Frank G   2007-11-11 06:57  

#1  I agree.
Posted by: Miyamoto Musashi   2007-11-11 06:54  

00:00