How should I respond to an anti from europe?

Fosbery

July 18, 2007, 12:45 PM

Thankyou 30 cal sob but if I were to be convicted of common assault here in the United Kingdom that would be grounds for the revocation of my firearms certificate, but I will make sure to laugh and point as much as I can :p

I have to say, I have turned antis around. Some into non-gun owning pro-gunners (most common - considering the hassle involved in shooting here) and a couple even into shooters! However, I've never done it over the internet. Something about this particular media allows people to simply ignore arguments when they find them difficult but in person you can force the point home and make people think about things. If I were going to try, I'd break it up something like this:

"What is a fact though is that a gun is a tool for killing."

Which is excellent because sometimes we need to kill people. Even so, the intended application of a tool from the perspective of the designer need have no bearing on the effectiveness of that tool when applied to the pursuit of killing. A kitchen knife designed for slicing vegetables can, with one single cut, render a person such that no aid of men can save them (vertical, downward insertion to the side of the neck, near the collar bone) and do so silently, cheaply and, when the victim is suprised, need not involve any great physical force. Fertilisers and gas cannisters can make as good a bomb as a pound of semtex and drugs that save the lives of some patients can be used to kill hundreds of others (see Dr. Harold Shipman). Indeed the largest single act of murder in recent history was facilitated by nothing more than a few plastic box cutters.

"In another post, you make it seem like it is the only thing that keeps a government from becoming a tyranny, but this is hardly what has happened in Europe, where no one carries guns."

In the past hundred years some 200 million people have been murdered by their own governments, most of them in mainland Europe. Yet we must remember that tyranny does not necessarily equate to mass murder. If you were to take a long, hard look at the society in which you live (and especially if comparing it in detail to more widelt recognised tryrannies), you might feel less confident that Europe is in fact devoid of tryranny today.

"As far as safety goes, I am shocked that people feel so insecure on the streets in America."

Gun ownership is no more about insecurity than wearing your seat-belt in your car or fitting a smoke alarm in the home or taking out life insurance. Gun ownership is hardly cowardly when one compares it to the alternatives when faced with a situation when a gun might be required - giving up your posessions, submitting to rape, begging for mercy as you are maimed or murdered.

"The worst 'bad guys' I encounter sometimes are people that openly laugh at me for wearing a cool hat. I've never in my entire life been confronted with a gun in a threatening way (i.e. as something other than a museum piece)."

This is good to hear, but has your house ever set on fire, your car ever been in a serious crash... have you ever died? Yet it would seem likely that you still have smoke alarms, wear a seat-belt and have life insurance (or will get it at some point). In any case, not everyone is as fortunate as you. Some areas of Europe, like Switzerland, do indeed have very low levels of violent crime. Equally, other areas have tremendous levels of violent crime - such as the UK, that has several times the rate of the USA. Even within countries the rate varies wildly from area to area.

And it is interesting that the country with the lowest rate of violent crime in Europe, Switzerland, actually has the highest rate of gun ownership and the laxest gun laws.

"Surely this is a much more relaxed organisation of a society than one where everyone has a cocked gun under his shirt, always on the look-out for some madcap aggressor?""

Being alert to threats posed to you is nothing less than a smart lifestyle choice. You look both ways before you cross the street, surely? You don't close your eyes when you're driving? All the evidence suggests that people who lawfully carry guns are far less likely to get into confrontations or fall into dangerous situations and you will find that people who do carry guns are hardly stressed out screwballs but are invariably relaxed and pleasant people enjoying life just as much as everybody else.

"Also; gun owners will state that guns are necessary to rise up to their government if necessary."

Do you propose that guns are not necessary for this?

"It occurs to me that it has never been more necessary than in the last eight years"

Indeed, increasing EU and UN tyranny as well as the continued introduction of the police-state across Europe and the wider world mean that people today have more reason to revolt than they have done for many decades or, in some places, ever.

"Despite your guns, you are just as codependent and harmless of and to the government as the rest of us are."

Liberty is secured by men but men require two things in order to do so; firstly the ability, if one cannot overthrow one's government for lack of training, weaponry, numbers, or some other factor, then there is no hope at all; and secondly the will, even if a man can overthrow his government, it takes a special sort of man to actually do so and, sadly, it seems we are lacking in them right now.

PILMAN

July 18, 2007, 12:47 PM

Heres another one regarding concealed carry

"Because, quite simply, I don't trust people. I've been physically and mentally hurt many, many times in my life by bullies, backstabbers, and fairweather friends. I get to regularly sit on the bus and listen to other passengers talking about their drug rehab and jail probations. I've known far too many incidents where people got violent during arguments, including one incident I got stuck in myself. And I've also known far too many incidents where the fact that someone had a weapon *did* make them cocky.

So yes, the notion that someone is armed and hiding it makes me nervous, because I know that much less about whether someone might be dangerous and worth giving a wide berth or not. Fists and feet I at least have eked out *some* skill in defending myself against, despite my generally being a complete clutz.

Peace & Luv, Liz"

Waitone

July 18, 2007, 12:48 PM

He killed someone. He might have been protecting himself, but he still killed someone. All lives are worth equally much. In front of the law, there should be no difference between people. Even if someone has committed a crime in the past, he might be innocent of the crime he is currently tried for.Yup! No argumentation is possible when your opposition can not distinguish between good and evil.

Another point: the Gary Mauser study---any word on the British data set he used for the study? Did he use the real statistics or did he use the data set diddled by British authorities?

PILMAN

July 18, 2007, 12:50 PM

He used the one by the government.

PILMAN

July 18, 2007, 12:53 PM

More responses

"This is a false analogy.

People wear a seat belt in case an accident happens (i.e. an event outside their direct control). If the seatbelt performs its intended operation all it does is stop someone from coming out of a car. They will not affect another human being by doing this.

By contrast if a gun performs its intended operation then someone is going to get hurt or killed. There is not a way of using a gun that won't affect another human being. Even if all you do is draw it without firing its potential to do harm is going to affect those around you at the time. (Having someone pull a gun on you is scary)

Cell phones and wallets are equally non-harmful to others in their intended use. You could argue that pocket knkives have a potential for doing harm but the length of the blade heavily limits this. The fact is, all the other items you mentioned have peaceful uses in everyday life. A gun's sole purpose is to put holes in things (be they targets or people)"

"That goes both ways though at least equally, especially since there's an entire industry thriving on peoples' needs of firearms. I really don't care, I'd feel more uncomfortable if everybody and his mother was carrying a gun over here though. I don't trust humans when it comes to such responsibilty a single bit. This includes myself, naturally. Never underestimate the situations life makes you face. Especially those emotionally charged. But then, it's not only guns that require such a degree of responsibility which lack of any we're all too often reminded of, eh?"

"I personally find a gun collection more offensive than, say, a porn collection or collection of erotic toys. I don't get why people are curious to collect things designed deliberately for no other purpose but to harm others; I find something vaguely inhuman about the whole thing."

"Owning a firearm in this day and age is one thing, in matters of self-defense, but it still doesn't justify the preoccupation some have with semi-automatics and other ridiculous firearms truly designed for destruction. I can't realistically see any attempt to ban or recall firearms at this point, but I still feel that they should not have been made in the first place. That's just me, though."

"You'll note that I wasn't involved at all in the debate. I was simply stating my opinion that I find gun collections disturbing. I don't see how that's a limited matter of perspective. It's entirely perspective, which was the point of the post; but I wouldn't question you if you thought anal sex was disturbing or that you don't like spiders. Some things are just like that for some people, given their experiences. For instance, when I think of guns I think of a day in my schooling when we had to barricade the doors because somebody walked into the school with a gun; and a relative who was a police officer that died on duty due to gunshot. Therefore, I don't like guns. Call it small-mindedness if you want, but I'm never going to like guns and I don't see why I ought to. I'd rather move somewhere else than buy a gun to feel safe.

Nevertheless, I never said I wanted guns banned, in fact I even said that I realize it would be pointless to try. I do think guns are partially responsible for a lot that's ****ed up in the world today, though. They're also responsible for the best death animations in Fallout, so....silver lining and all that ****."

"For one, it's not property crimes I'm worried about; I've never once had anyone try to break into any house I've lived in. It's getting shot in a drive-by, getting caught in a downtown crossfire, or getting shot by someone who mistakenly thought I looked at them the wrong way that worries me.

For two, since we've already established that the riff-raff in my area are also armed, owning a gun isn't going to do me any good since it'd come down to me vs. them... and I can tell you they likely have fewer scruples and better hand-eye coordination.

I do agree that moving is easier said than done... but I'm personally would not feel that needing to own a gun for protection/to feel safe is something to be proud of. It's a statement of being in a bad living situation, not something to brag about, IMHO.

Peace & Luv, Liz"

__________________________________________________________________________________

Amazing the responses people leave eh?

M1 Shooter

July 18, 2007, 12:58 PM

PILMAN

July 18, 2007, 01:01 PM

We will never understand their mentality, and they will never understand ours. Much of it is caused by cultural differences. Don't waste your time debating people like that. Its not just the gun control debate either. A lot of Europeans don't understand many of the things we Americans take for granted, like freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and all that other freedom "nonsense".

A lot of people generally tell me i'm wasting my time, i've run chat rooms and posted on forums and most folks feel like it's pointless. "can a leopard change it's spots?", basically my debates are generally based on facts and evidence and normally the people I am targeting are fence sitters, the antis for the most part have already made up their mind.

Vern Humphrey

July 18, 2007, 01:09 PM

Some years back I was on a tour in Europe and our guide, a cute little Scottish lassie, asked, "Why do you Americans object to taxes so much? Here in Europe we say taxes are the price for living in a free country."

And an American replied, "Darlin, the price of liberty is etermal vigilance, not eternal taxation."

PILMAN

July 18, 2007, 01:20 PM

interesting.

I never knew the topic of guns could be so controversial, I would say in some cases it's more controversial than Israel, the Iraq war, pedophilia and gay marriage combined.

Anytime I start a thread on guns without the intention of politics, someone always has to make a sny remark "oh you americans and your guns no wonder you have so many deaths". They will go as far as to inflate our statistics claiming we have 22,000 deaths then someone will say it's 50,000 deaths and they can't provide the statistics. According to nationmaster, our death by firearms is somewhere around 8,500 + which according to michael moores film was 11,000 + at the time he made it which if true would indicate our murders with use of guns would be quite lower now.

These people will do anything they can to try and claim guns are evil, they will go to the point of trying to bring up logical debates (which are far from it) claiming how guns are dangerous or bring up murder, then they will compare their so called paradise, they will try and claim gun control is a good thing or they will flat out say Americans don't have the right to bear arms and that it only applied to the militia, if that fails they just claim the constitution is outdated. They seem to keep their debates in steps like a bunch of preprogrammed robots, it's almost like automated responses.

ozwyn

July 18, 2007, 01:34 PM

Kindy remind them that countries which have banned firearms have seen an increase in violent crime per capita. For every single "gun" crime reduced, they have exchanged it for numerous other violent assaults.

anti-gun is pro-rape, pro-assault and pro-criminal.

it robs individuals of the right to effective self defense in exchange for the hollow promise of rapid, effective police response and prosecution. (which, by no coincidence, always lags farther and farther behind in those nation engaging in draconian gun restrictions)

HippieCrusher

July 18, 2007, 01:43 PM

Take the high road and ignore him. He's trying to pick a fight by taking cheap shots. You'll never change his mind.

July 18, 2007, 01:50 PM

I f ever there was a time to use the ignore function, it would be for an anti like this.

budney

July 18, 2007, 01:53 PM

"Why do you Americans object to taxes so much? Here in Europe we say taxes are the price for living in a free country."

I think she just said, "Slavery is the price you pay for all this freedom we have!"

Scorpiusdeus

July 18, 2007, 01:53 PM

One of this biggest problems is that they have no clue what America or Americans are really like. Even the ones who live here for awhile.

They truly think we are all packing. I would venture to say that it's a very small percentage of the population that actually is. They also believe they will be shot over a dirty look or a small slight. They think this is extremely common here. Maybe it comes from living in such a small country. They have no clue.

They've also already given up all their rights. They are under constant surveillance by the police and government. With such a high percentage of their people on some sort of aid program, they are the babies who do what Mommy tells them to so they can still suckle at her tit.

There are many things about the English Spirit I admire, but this pacifist roll over and play stupid stuff isn't one to them.

They have plenty of Crime in the UK, they just don't sensationalize it like we do here.

mjrodney

July 18, 2007, 01:57 PM

These words, of St. George Tucker (1752-1827), an early American lawyer, ring true for me....you have likely read them before....

Quote:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.

The right of self defense is the first law of nature.

In most governments, it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

Unquote

It was a desire for liberty that led to the birth of this great country.

My right to own firearms is part and parcel of that liberty.

And if necessary, my firearms are there to protect that liberty, from any foreign power or ideaology that would try to take that liberty away from me.

budney

July 18, 2007, 02:07 PM

Dear Liz,

If the seatbelt performs its intended operation all it does is stop someone from coming out of a car. They will not affect another human being by doing this.

The other human being affected by your self-defense is the one who is attempting to grievously injure, rape or kill you. That person is choosing, by his own actions, to initiate a confrontation in which someone is liable to get hurt--although clearly he intends for that person to be you, not himself. Since he's taking this risk upon himself, he's every bit as liable for the consequences as if he took up skydiving and his parachute failed to open, or if he took up lion taming and and got himself bitten. He's insisting on a violent encounter with you, and he bears sole responsibility if the outcome is injury or death to himself.

Love and Lollipops,
Len.

jdm1986

July 18, 2007, 02:12 PM

As in most issues, I can see both sides. It's a struggle. I'm obviously pro-gun (I own several) and I have a CCW permit. This (following idea) kind of settled it for me, once and for all. I read it somewhere, and I'm going to butcher it, but it goes something like this :

Freedom comes at a price, and that price is (immediate) comfort.

Like the colonists who fought.. they wanted freedom. It would've been more comfortable and safe to just give in (although, probably not in the long run). We live in this society, and we have to choose whether we want freedom (and with that comes a certain element of danger)

...or be "safe", guarded from each other, and have our rights slowly taken away. Whether or not it's from a tyrant, you HAVE to give people less rights to make them feel more secure. Of course all of us gun owners aren't always on the lookout, but we do realize that things can happen, and weapons (not just guns) are obviously going to be more accessible the more available they are to the general public.

It'd be comforting (to some, and in certain ways) to have knives, bats, other blunt objects, cars, etc.. outlawed, especially for those with families - from a safety standpoint.

but how free are you at that point?

I'm all over with this post, but once I start writing about something I'm passionate about (and have been thinking over a lot) it just opens up the faucet.

Freedom doesn't guarantee comfort or safety. I think that people should be comfortable to a point, but certain freedom is necessary, and certain comfort is not.

NCLivingBrit

July 18, 2007, 02:21 PM

And this Euro-Anti attitude is why Gentle Reader, I am so very glad to be living in the US now.

A fortunate happenstance of meeting and falling for one of your most excellent American Womenfolk has brought me a great deal of peripheral enlightenment.

There is something very fulfilling in knowing that I have the tools to defend me and mine against those who would do us harm, whoever they might be.

I never really subscribed to the passivity so prevalent in my home (the UK) when it comes to matters of self defence. I was always careful to retain every lawful advantage I could, only to find these stripped away by methodical legislation. Here at least, I can equip my family for the worst, legally.

So not every Euro is an Anti, or so keen to swallow the Leftist/Passivitist line about guns and the morality of owning them. It's just the ones who don't think that way have to watch what they say if they don't want to be investigated and scorned.

Vern Humphrey

July 18, 2007, 02:21 PM

I used to do a lot of skydiving when I was younger. We usually jumped from light planes. You take off the right door, remove the right front seat and controls and the first jumper sits flat on the floor, by the open door. It's scary.

I used to watch my altimeter on the way up, and when we reached a thousand feet, I'd feel the tension drain out of my body. I'd think to myself, "It's okay now. No matter what happens -- the wings fall off, the engine explodes, or old Thud Collins in the pilot's seat has a seizure -- I can get myself down."

And that's how I feel about carrying a gun -- no matter what happens, I can rely on myself.

ilnanoe15

July 18, 2007, 02:59 PM

It's really just a sad time in the history of mankind when you look at these people's responses. Rather than take any sort of defensive measures, they'd rather submit like sheep to anyone who tries to rob/maim/murder them and count on the fact that A: the police will get there, B: the person is only after your belongings. Even if the police get to a house in 10 minutes, it is plenty of time to rape, beat, or murder you with any object. Besides that, anyone who thinks that somebody should be prosecuted for self-defense should really get their head checked. It just makes no sense to me how someone could see a woman in a bad light because they didn't want to get raped and therefore shot someone. I guarantee you that nearly all of the people who make the outrageous replies you see have never experienced a violent theft or an assault on their person. No one who has experienced the bad side of life would deny protection to others less fortunate than themselves.

pistolman1974

July 18, 2007, 03:37 PM

The one thing that i've noticed is that alot of people who are anti-gun have not had to dial 911. For some anti-gunners it becomes crystal clear but only then.

Doggy Daddy

July 18, 2007, 03:38 PM

Waitone
Yup! No argumentation is possible when your opposition can not distinguish between good and evil.

An excellent point.

I would extend that to include oppostion who does not recognize the concept of good and evil. 'It's all relative,' ya know... :banghead:

Neo-Luddite

July 18, 2007, 03:44 PM

It's amazing--when you think that the Hollocaust happened in that same 'modern' Europe--that this person you're debating with can't come up with at least six million reasons why the private ownership of firearms is an essential and basic human right.

Medusa

July 18, 2007, 03:47 PM

IF to be mid-roadish (not exactly low), then Liz needs a boyfriend. A lot of women I've argued on similar topics have THAT kind of problem, thus they pour out the anger on other topics.

Also, please be so kind and do not generalize some slaves-by-will actions onto the whole Europe. I'm not anti, for example.

Gun control means 2 in the chest, 1 in the head; criminal's only choice in armed confrontation is either single shots or burst of proper length.

Sure we're the minority, but we're out there, so don't give up on us. As the saying goes here, carried weapon is the sign of free man.

Right to live is the primary right, by the laws of nature - preservation of species, where fittest live and weaker die. I'm making everything I can to ensure the criminal will be the weak one.

Antis can go to hell and die.

Whatever it takes, I'll shoot the BG, use the bayonet if I have one, I'll frag the BG, I'll call the friend with FH70 (155mm howitzer) to back me up, have the BG run over with APC with Ma Deuce. The BG will regret he/she ever got out that evening instead of watching Oprah rerun. :cuss:

Vern Humphrey

July 18, 2007, 03:50 PM

this person you're debating with can't come up with at least six million reasons why the private ownership of firearms is an essential and basic human right.
Twelve million -- six million Jews and six million "others," including gypsies, mentally retarded people and about three million Polish Catholics.

Medusa

July 18, 2007, 03:57 PM

Add those 100+M of communist victims.

Vern Humphrey

July 18, 2007, 04:03 PM

And eleven million Chinese killed by the Japanese.

PILMAN

July 18, 2007, 04:06 PM

Did the Japanese disarm the Chinese and the Koreans?

Neo-Luddite

July 18, 2007, 04:13 PM

I hate using the Hollocaust as the best argument for the ownership of firearms, but it usually gets through the anti's somewhat thick skulls.
There are genocides going on all over the world--but I've never heard of one being carried out on a large scale against an armed population. Maybe that's an overstatment--but I'd rather take my chances while armed.

"Did the Japanese disarm the Chinese and the Koreans?" HMMMM.
I don't know that there was ever a general ownership of credible firearms in either place.

Vern Humphrey

July 18, 2007, 04:13 PM

They were already disarmed. The Chinese were basically a peasant feudal society -- and feudal lords don't like armed peasants. The Koreans had been under Japanese control for about two generations.

When I was in Korea (2nd Infantry Division, '80-'81) it was illegal to own a knife. Americans didn't get hasseled but if you wanted to ship something home, there was a shop behind the PX that would pack it for you. They made up boxes to fit from old cardboard, which they cut with sharpened table knives -- other kinds of knives being illegal.

budney

July 18, 2007, 04:24 PM

Did the Japanese disarm the Chinese and the Koreans?

As others have already said, it wasn't necessary to disarm them. The Chinese came pre-disarmed for your slaughtering pleasure.

--Len.

col_tapiocca

July 18, 2007, 04:25 PM

Not every european has the same opinion on guns. Depends on country it vary!
The brits are banned gun legal ownership for a while. But since their crime rate goes up. Because criminal know you can't defend with guns.
Switzerland and Scandinavia region have the most liberal gun law and the most people are pro gun. Because here in Switzerland every man have to service in the army. And boys get instruction for the service rifle when they are 16 years old. So the most Swiss have basic knowledge about guns.
European who are anti guns probably never seen or handle with a real gun.
But fortunately I'm Swiss not European:evil:

(For those who don't know: Switzerland is not in the European Union)

pistolman1974

July 18, 2007, 04:32 PM

MikePGS

July 18, 2007, 04:36 PM

Well you could always mention that since we have personal ownership of firearms we don't have to rely on the government for our every need. Then again, maybe some europeans actually find this sign comforting?

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/MikePGS/watchful_eyes.jpg

MikePGS

July 18, 2007, 04:37 PM

From what I understand, though it could be a myth, the Japanese didn't invade the main 48 states because of firearm ownership. I believe the quote was. " If you invade, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass"
While i believe the quote is generally attributed to Yamamoto, i think it's actually been debunked. As in theres no evidence that he actually said such a thing, but rather it'd been attributed to him for some reason or another.

Vern Humphrey

July 18, 2007, 04:46 PM

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kreca2.html

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (the chief planner of the Pearl Harbor attack) spoke warningly of "a rifle behind every blade of grass" when discussions of invading the USA came up.

ConfuseUs

July 18, 2007, 05:04 PM

No need to win the debate with this one. We just need to make sure that when Western Europe has been overrun by Muslim radicals who want to reduce Europe to 9th century standards of civil rights, women's rights, and intellectual freedom that effete snobs like this are not allowed out of the nest they fouled. I think then he or she may start to agree with our thinking.

lanternlad1

July 18, 2007, 05:29 PM

Debate won't win this argument, you need proof of how things REALLY work.

So give it to them. Show them what happens when their big and powerful government can't protect them.

I'm talking about KATRINA.

Show them news articles of how FEMA totally failed the residents of New Orleans.

Show them videos of little old ladies being beaten by thugs in police vests when they refuse to comply with an unlawful order to hand over their weapons.

Show them the heightened crime statistics of other cities that opened their hearts to flood refugees, only to have some of those same refugees try their terror tactics in a new environment.

Show before and after pictures of store owners whose weapons were taken unlawfully and who were looted or died because of it.

SHOW NEW ORLEANS AS THE WAR ZONE IT IS TODAY.

Those who never lived it won't believe it. Those who did will never forget it.

The all-powerful government can't always protect you. When the lights go out, you'll have to do that for yourself.

Do you feel safe with that baseball bat?

I feel safe with my guns...

Blackbeard

July 18, 2007, 05:39 PM

What is a fact though is that a gun is a tool for killing.

To paraphrase his argument, he's saying that you don't need a gun unless you're planning to kill someone. By that token, you don't need homeowner's insurance unless you're planning to burn down your house. It's a tool that is useless until it's really needed.

It's a dangerous thing to have because it enables people to do serious harm in their moments of greatest weakness, when they succumb to rage or other anxieties.

It also enables us to defend ourselves against people succumbing to rage. If there were no guns, only large people or good fighters would be dangerous when they go off. The rest of us would be helpless.

gun owners will state that guns are necessary to rise up to their government if necessary. It occurs to me that it has never been more necessary than in the last eight years

The people who would have risen up to overthrow the current administration don't believe in private gun ownership. Imagine if there were no guns in this country and W decided to stay on as president after 2008, until the War on Terror is over. How are you going to stop him? Negotiate?

17poundr

July 18, 2007, 06:22 PM

I disagree strongly to the claim that if you buy a gun you are planning to kill somebody, othewize this man's country should arrest every person in it's armed forces!!!

I myself have come to this conclusionment, and if I ever get my dream of having my own range/shop, then on the range along with the Finnish army's range 'prayer' which goes 'I shall NEVER aim a gun, empty or loaded at anybody ever, exept if it is an enemy'.

Obiously an enemy is somebody trying to kill you! (or let us say for argument, planning to rape and rob your village, and perhaps let some live to tell the tale, but you get the picture I'm shure)...

So, appart from this very wize and universal rule when dealing with firearms, I thought of a second 'truth' that I think is kind of what it's about, and would like to display it someday. It goes like this: "A gun is a tool which is correctly used when you do not have to use it against another person. But, as some people do not use their guns correctly one must be ready for the unthinkable"... (Or something to that effect).

I'm from Finland, the EU, and my views arent so popular, even though I do not glorify violence, and havent been into anykind of fight since I was about 15 (I'm 37 now).

You can send my regards to that man, and put him into the position of having to live in a cituation where criminals are more often armed than not, would he be willing to be shot and have possible family or friends shot too just because he isnt planning to murder anybody???

Meaning, his argument is just plain bad logic, and he is trying to get under your skin... Also, apart form self defense gun culture, there is a plethora of interesting sports out there involving firearms, and in Europe you can get a composite bow, without a license, and easily kill somebody with it. Now, are all Olympic bow champions murder suspects I ask of him??? :confused::barf::fire:

Yours truly, Mr Poundr.

P.S. Here are some of the beautiful guns made by European gun manufacturers (wherever their factories might be nowadays)... So why the finger pointing? I admit that the US and some Central American counties I have travelled in have high murder rates, but I'm still here, and I think that it's often a question of what one gets involved in that puts one at risk rather than just living in a certain country.

That aside, tragedies like say the Colombine shootings are awful, and I cannot think of a better idea than armed guards, after all, in Central America, certain places have armed guards with German high firepower assault weapons and bodyarmour in front of every shop ect worth a penny! (I mean it, from Pizza hut, to the banks)!

The Viking

July 18, 2007, 06:43 PM

But fortunately I'm Swiss not European:evil:
Too bad you guys are joining Schengen. Stock up and hide as much as you can. Have a few "official" guns for the day when They come to take them.

The Viking

July 18, 2007, 06:49 PM

For what its worth, not all euro's are anti-gun. Though I've only met a few (two that I can think of) who oppose the whole licensing thing and all that.
I'm sickened of this continent, and I want to move to the US. I signed up for the Green Card lottery last year. No luck :(. Biggest disappointment I've been through in my entire life :(.

Waitone

July 18, 2007, 07:07 PM

230RN

July 18, 2007, 07:14 PM

The Viking

July 18, 2007, 07:18 PM

All you shooters from across the pond. . . . . keep posting and letting the Yanks know what reality is. What we have here in the US is the exception, not the rule. Sometimes we forget to be appreciative of what we have in favor of bellyaching over what we don't have.

Mr. 17poundr, well put!!! :D
What reality is like? Pure h€ll. A guy was convicted of assault some time ago, for bashing in the head of another fellow with the handle of a car jack...the fellow who just happened to be beating the crap out of a woman at the time. What kind of a sick society would sentence him to 1 year in prison? The Swedish, to start with.
I figure that I should get a good degree in something, and then try to move over. Most of Europe is doomed anyway.

The Viking

July 18, 2007, 07:22 PM

Every time I see a movie (or hear about it in actuality) where marauding bands of pillagers raid a village and the people are screaming and running away in terror, I wonder what would have happened if every lowly villager had a lowly .22 rifle and a box of lowly .22LRs.

(Best of luck next time, Viking!)
Thanks. Though I'm going to college/university soon I hope. I just don't know what to study right now :(. (My grades from high school weren't the greatest. Figure I could get into something that actually leads to a job though. Atleast I hope).

obxned

July 18, 2007, 08:58 PM

Politely remind this guy that Germany did try total gun control in the 1930's. There are more than 12 million dead folks who discovered it was a very bad idea.

Texshooter

July 18, 2007, 10:03 PM

Laughing should work.

ilcylic

July 18, 2007, 10:34 PM

budney

July 18, 2007, 10:41 PM

"Also; gun owners will state that guns are necessary to rise up to their government if necessary. It occurs to me that it has never been more necessary than in the last eight years, going from the amount of damage the US has done to international relationships and wars. But where were all the gun-toting citizens? Despite your guns, you are just as codependent and harmless of and to the government as the rest of us are."

There are those of us who consider the last sixteen years a complete abomination. But it's quite a switch to worry about a bad guy getting hurted, and then suddenly call for Americans to rise up in civil war, isn't it? Armed insurrection is the last resort of desperate men; it's a bit breathtaking to hear someone say, "Put your money where your mouth is and shoot your President."

--Len.

jefnvk

July 18, 2007, 11:07 PM

I don't say run away. Seems that the guy doesnt have a problem with weapons, but at the same time can't understand why someone would want them.

Actually sounds like you may have a chance to do good, to enlighten him.

Gary Frost

July 18, 2007, 11:13 PM

I don't think these foreign antis understand SD, protection from a guberment gone bad, ccw or any other pro firearms responce. I would tell this anti person that each week 10's of million americans go to their favorite range, send perhaps 10's of million rounds downrange without as much as a scratch. Its not about killing anything

koja48

July 18, 2007, 11:57 PM

Never forget the old adage that is applicable when tempted to argue with avowed antis in an effort to change their minds: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and just pisses-off the pig." Some arguments/debates are un-winnable.

ConfuseUs

July 19, 2007, 04:00 AM

Yeah it's true that it's a waste of time to teach pigs to sing. However I think that here it is more a matter of wrestling a pig: you get muddy and the pig has a good time. The Euro is having a grand ol' time flaunting his supposed cultural and political superiority to at least one poor backwards American.

Black Adder LXX

July 19, 2007, 07:15 AM

Here's some reasons to not waste your time:

A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Like cutting off one's feet or drinking violence is the sending of a message by the hand of a fool.
Like a lame man's legs that hang limp is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.
Like tying a stone in a sling is the giving of honor to a fool.
Like a thornbush in a drunkard's hand is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.
Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passer-by.
As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

Proverbs 26:3-11

crankshop1000

July 19, 2007, 08:15 AM

We are what we are...the most free nation in the history of the world. As soon as we realize that we cannot force our freedom and democratic society on every other country, we will be even better.Europe has more than it's share of problems and when the Muslim versus Christian war begins in earnest, the original citizens will regret going along with this anti gun B.S.JMHO Chuck.

doubleg

July 19, 2007, 09:22 AM

Almost all Europeans hate Americans.

They hate the idea of a nation of immigrants.

They hate that we are the richest country.

They hate that we deserve credit for helping them during ww2.

They hate how we refuse to go along with their anti gun policies.

They hate how we stood up to terrorism instead of running away with our tales between our legs.

They hate the idea of civilians being armed and taking care of themselves, with out the government monitoring everything.

Europeans hate America and everything about Americans, there is no reasoning with them.

17poundr

July 19, 2007, 11:29 AM

Hey, easy going there mr doubleg! I hear a tint of hate in your post... Sarcasm is good, and welcome, but let's not get too carried away.

I'm a citizen of two European countries (UK and FIN if somebody must know), and all I can say is that not everybody hates the Americans, also much of the hatred is for the US foreign policy, not US people or even US state laws (exept when on the topic of gun control), which is amuzing in Finland as we have something like two and a half million firearms in a country with a population of five million! This is ofcourse mostly to do with hunting, Britain on the other hand is really a b***h, as getting to own a handgun is pretty much impossible.

Also, in Britain the supposed anti Americanism is clearly lesser than in say, certain Scandinavian countries... But get a nice US man or woman over here, and all the boys and girls will be most interested in , eh, 'meeting' him/her... :D

(But here in Finland it can be done, although they make it unduely complicated, and any excuse to deny such a permit is used, also the fact of getting a gun of your own differs totally as to where one applies for a permit, and we are supposed to have a national policy for these matters)!

Oh, and nevermind the fact that almost all gun crime is committed by illegal handguns, or drunken guys in the countryside getting their shotguns out after an argument, both cases give proof that giving a guy a permit for a handgun, so that he can go on and participate in practical shooting isnt a menace to society at all... Sigh.. :banghead:

JohnL2

July 19, 2007, 11:37 AM

This thread is fascinating. I must visit Europe and see if the whole cultural dichotomy thing is as dramatic as you all make it sound.

I'm sickened of this continent, and I want to move to the US. I signed up for the Green Card lottery last year. No luck . Biggest disappointment I've been through in my entire life .

Is it really that bad?
When I think of Europe I think of quaint villages, Old Europe cobblestone streets, and people on mopeds and driving odd looking cars. Of course high taxes. Maybe it works for them.

I can only imagine the reactions to me. An ethnic Yank.

AirForceShooter

July 19, 2007, 11:53 AM

How do you explain freedom to a slave?
How do you explain self-determination to a serf?

When you can answer that, you can talk guns to a european.

AFS

The Viking

July 19, 2007, 02:03 PM

JohnL2: Yeah, it is. For example, take the stuff I've heard/read about today...night club in Malmö (Southern Sweden) shot at with automatic weapon. Perps got off on motorcycle/moped.
Pistolpacking teens (again on mopeds) robbing armored car in Stockholm.
A few weeks ago: Teen in critical condition after being stabbed in the back by another teen, who had been set loose after less than a year of counseling or something like that. His earlier crime? He had stabbed a 15 year old. In the back. The guy almost died. Why isn't the perpetrator DEADDEADDEAD!?!?!?!

Add rampant socialism, nannyism, anti-americanism, uncontrolled immigration from problem areas (immigrants who then never get a job, and thus live on the dole for the rest of their lives).

Etc etc. Need any more info?

PILMAN

July 19, 2007, 02:39 PM

They closed my thread, I guess they don't feel like debating anymore, and of course they had to have the last word. Somehow I don't feel like I wasted my time though.

Baba Louie

July 19, 2007, 04:30 PM

They closed my thread, I guess they don't feel like debating anymore, and of course they had to have the last word. Somehow I don't feel like I wasted my time though.There it is then. Perhaps next go round you could try the Shakespearean method I call the "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" (aka "Brutus is an honourable man")... maybe... should you again choose to tilt at windmills. (and you will Pilman, you will)

Walk a mile in their mocassins attempting to understand their ways, agreeing that what works best for one may in fact be poison for another.

I know that history has a way of repeating itself and twice now Europe has felt the awful impact of US intervention, much to their chagrin I am sure. It may be that the third time there will be no one to answer the beck and call; certainly a question worthy of consideration should the average American lay down not only their arms, but the will to use them in just cause. I'm thinking it will surely be a benefit for several differing cultures to rest assured knowing that the US Lamb lies down for, er, with the Lion as instructed by the all knowing and Innocent child. True?

Naaah. Muddy Pig Wrasslin'... is good sport, ain't it? :D
Specially when ya get 'em to sing along wich ya in three part harmony. ;)

Dorryn

July 19, 2007, 04:56 PM

For two, since we've already established that the riff-raff in my area are also armed, owning a gun isn't going to do me any good since it'd come down to me vs. them... and I can tell you they likely have fewer scruples and better hand-eye coordination.

"Since you've already given up, can I have the contents of your bank account?"

Jubjub

July 19, 2007, 06:40 PM

I'm sort of partial to quoting this little essay.

Why the Gun is Civilization

Markos Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

JWarren

July 19, 2007, 06:44 PM

Short answer to they OP question:

I don't debate or attempt to rationalize US laws to non-US citizens. Those laws are not any of their concern.

-- John

budney

July 19, 2007, 06:46 PM

JubJub, it's an interesting essay. The choice isn't between reason and force, though: it's between free-will and force. There are lots of ways to persuade you to do something of your own free will, and not all of them use "reason." I can pay you. I can appeal to our friendship. I can do you a favor in return, etc.

The biggest persuader by orders of magnitude is the voluntary trade. Billions of people got other people to do something today of their own free will, by means of voluntary trade.

Which reminds me--I have to head out soon. I'd better go persuade the gal behind the counter to give me a Big Mac of her own free will...

PILMAN

July 22, 2007, 01:41 PM

I got some others i'm debating with from Australia on a european forum.

Wonder what I should respond with.

"i fail to see how you can still put forward all these arguments about the UK and Australia when in American you have this much vaunted right to bear arms, while still having a crime rate that is an order of magnitude higher (than Australia anyway, not sure about the exact figures in the UK).

and for that matter why are you bringing up the writting of the US constitution, a document has nothing to do with the governance of the United Kingdom, while quoting a piece of legislation specifically created to oppose that nations army. You may think this is applicable because of the tyranny of the times, but these are very different times, domestic politics are controlled by public opinion, the sovereignty of the people, a principle that was first penned by the founding fathers of the American nation and government. This makes it highly improbably with the spirit of the time for any western nation to enforce martial law, let alone an untrained, unaccountable minority to take up arms against it.

QUOTE
Wait so we should be unarmed anyways because the govt has bigger guns and we're going to die anyways? In that case I don't see how the right to bear arms matters to you if we're screwed in the end. Seems like if there were a civil war, your indicating it wouldn't matter if you owned a gun or not because you'd likely be killed. Just how do you think the US is going to bomb citys full of unarmed people? Armed citizens are everyday people like you and I.

Do you really truly believe that you have to be armed so you can fight your own government? if so then that is a sad sorry set of affairs when a self proclaimed citizen is willing to take up arms against their own democratically elected government (even if that can be debated about the US ). Personally i highly doubt your military would even carry out such an order if it were given.

QUOTE
In other words, we are the militia. I see this as the trump card for proving why we, as citizens, need firearms.

yes because giving every man and his dog a lethal weapon to use at his (able bodied male, sexist much?) will is good idea...

QUOTE
Goes for Australia as well by the way. I had a look at their firearms laws, and they indeed do have various sections to categorize firearms. Then I looked at the requirements to obtain one, and what kind of limitations they have in place.

and limitations are bad how? you can still buy a handgun here if you have a legitimate use, you can still buy a rifle here to hunt, you can't go buy one off Joe blow
and start shooting up a cafe (Port Arthur massacre) "

Heres the post after it

"damn straight there mower! even though i do not like Australian firearms laws, i still believe that they work well. the freedom of Americans' seems a bit too much for me.

I may not like the fact that i cant own my own pistol (because i have no legitimate reason beyond "i want one"), but at least i can still go down to the pistol range and fire off a few hundred round out of a selection of pistols.

the only one problem i have with our firearms laws is that Airsoft itself is classified under them, and we can not own anything as they are considered military orientated. "

I was going to point out the rise in gun crime in Australia but they claim a snopes article shows that is false and gun crime is actually dropping?

rangerruck

July 22, 2007, 04:06 PM

just pile on him quote after quote, of the founding fathers, most of which , were first or second gen. Europeans, who knew more about, and studied more about european history, thatn this guy ever will. make sure he knows that , also.
quotes on gun ownership.

17poundr

July 23, 2007, 12:46 AM

I MUST PROTEST TO THE POST FROM WIKING, IT HAD RACIST UNDERTONES, AND ALTHOUGH I HATE THE EU GUN LICENCE POLICIES, I MUST SAY THAT EUROPE IS A GREAT PLACE TO SEE, BY ALL MEANS COME AND TRAVEL HERE, THE MURDER RATE IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THAT IN AMERICA SO YOU WILL BE SAFE UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING VERY STUPID..

sorry, the large fonts just 'came on', but I got somewhat mad form wikings post. I mean every country in the world has juvenile crime of the most horrible kind sometimes...
finland is EU's number one for unwarranted violence (meaning: getting beaten up for no apparent reason, just the fun of it).

Still, if you avoid angry looking drunken young men at three 'o' clock in the morning at Saturday night, you will be ok... Most of the violence is alchohol related...

I agree that Sweden has let perhaps too many immigrants into it's relatively small population base, but the old line of 'they are stealing our jobs ect'... Just aint the truth...

Look at America with the plethora of ethical groups working and living together to produce the worlds most powerful and energetic nation!!

Or london, which has About 8million inhabitants, from those at least one million are form the Indian sub continent, the Caribbean or Africa, and I have found London the most functioning multicultural city I have been to!

Not that I encountered any violence in LA in 88 either, but we didnt go to East LA on a Friday night. Especially as the radio stated that two people had been murdered in LA that evening so far...

No country is totally good, or totally bad, that is the wisdom I have picked up in my travels in all Continents but Australasia...

Still, I would love to own a Mossberg shotgun, a half dozen of various handguns, a good cowboy gun, an Ak, and AR-15 clone, and the Ruger 223rem 5round marksman gun, a good bolt action win300magnum, and a fast shooting version of the m-14... And for long range stuff probably the Armalite 338lapua 5round semi auto...

And I would love to learn self loading cartridges, and gunsmithing, and hopefully have a shop with a range at the back, where people who couldnt make up their minds, could for the normal gun range-weapon rent fee, go and test for comparison the guns they are comparing in their minds, and arrange special weekends at the range where I would teach the tactical shooting I learned in th eFinnish army (all abiding to the laws of the state I was in, meaning. if only cops and soldiers were allowed to get this training then so be it), Also I would love to set up a small import-export business where I could scout for the good stuff made in Europe and and export the best cowboy guns into Europe, and try to promote practical shooting in Europe and finally try to get it as a realized 'x-treme game' and get it into the 'x olympics first' then go for the real Olympics!

All of this I know I could acchieve only in America, so please dont get me wrong.

Yours truly,
Mr poundr.

p.s. And one day, I would wish to acchieve, for my part the legal Finland style ownership of guns for citizens with no violent history, or any sentences on their sheets, in Britain... And see the once world leading British gun industry rise again..

And the best way to do that is to get practical shooting into an Olympic sport...

iapetus

July 23, 2007, 02:55 PM

The original debater, judging by the first post, seemed fairly reasonable to me, but just without the personal experience or historical knowledge to justify the RKBA. Did you get anywhere with them before the thread closed?

As for the Australian, he seems less open minded, so I'm not so sure you could get anywhere debating with him.

Some general suggestions for debating this sort of subject:

Find out if there is any situation where they would consider the use of lethal force to be justified. If they say "no", then check if they really mean someone about to be raped/murdered should be banned from killing in self defence. If they say "yes", then they are a lost cause and should be ignored. (But you could point out that even UK law disagrees with them).

If they accept that there are circumstances where lethal force is justified, then they probably think that - on balance - the danger of allowing everyone to have a gun, with no licensing restrictions, will result in more crimes (or accidents) than it would prevent. (They are likely basing their opinions on "facts" about a gun being 43 times more likely to be used against a family member than a criminal, etc). In that case, providing them with better information may help.

Also, try to find out the person's political, ethical, and philosophical stance, and see if you can find an argument that fits with their world view. (For example, in the UK at least, I've found that left-wingers (of the non-blissninny variety), tend to be more receptive to the idea of firearms as a means for resisting dictatorships (which in their view will invariably be right-wing ones) than as a means of crime prevention).

If they are generally tolerant or even in favour of firearm use/ownership for self defence/tyranny prevention, but think you are still going a bit too far in your opposition to licensing/restrictions, I'd point out, as relevant:
* If someone doesn't own a gun, and suddenly discovers they really need one (they realize they have a stalker, for example), then delays on acquiring one could literally put their life at risk.

* Just because a government doesn't (allegedly) want to take your guns away, a future one might (and not just a would-be dictator). Therefore registration, even if introduced by a non-gun-hating government, would allow confiscation by a future government.

* A dictator or would-be dictator, once in a position of power, will not allow his subjects to acquire arms. Therefore, any arms intended to be used in a widespread resistance will have to be acquired before the dictator comes to power. Consequently, it would have to be legal to keep and bear arms under a benign government. (I.e. the common argument "But this government is a liberal democracy, not a dictatorship, so you don't need guns" doesn't wash).

References to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising may be useful. Particularly how many resources had to be diverted away from the war with the Allies in order to quell it. Especially if you speculate on what would have happened if the majority of the ghetto inhabitants had been armed and joined the resistance, rather than meekly boarding the trains even when they knew they were to be killed. And if similar uprisings had occurred elsewhere simultaneously.

Another damning statistic that I realized recently but haven't yet used in a debate: The contribution of the Holocaust alone to the average European murder rate for the past 100 years is a factor of 10 greater than the annual US firearm homicide rate. (11M/100years = 110,000pa vs 11,000pa). And that's before you add the contributions from Stalin, Milosovitch, etc).

ready4shtf

July 23, 2007, 04:29 PM

I usually just use the "You're just jealous" line. And then I pull out the pictures.

igor

July 23, 2007, 06:01 PM

Viking, Sweden is indeed up 5h1t creek but hey, that's democracy in action... :banghead:

It would suit both you and quite a few of the other contributors here not to paint with the big brush meant for fat, dumb four-year-olds, though. Bear with me; one thing (among many) I've learned here is that the US is hugely diverse.

News flash: "Europe" is a couple orders of magnitude more diverse. It's a geographical continent, not a unified blissninny surrendermonkey loserculture from Greece thru Denmark to western Russia, for :cuss:'s sake.

If you have a beef with the police state that (no-longer-so-great) Britain is in, talk about UK. If a liberal know-it-all flower-hatted pot-smoking soon-to-be-soccer-single-mother from Germany ticks you off, talk back about Germany. But would you be as kind as to get your facts straight before you lump, say, Finland in with them?

Especially the smart donkey "liberators of all of Europe" from WWII truly get to me. FYI, there were three European capitals that weren't occupied in that war: London, Moscow and Helsinki. And we managed that quite nicely without asking for any help from you, thank you very much. We used the Nazis instead. :evil:

I quite agree with the Estonian neighbor here that most people who yap illogically with their panties in a wedgy bunch when it comes to firearms are exactly those who never held one and only got their notion of what's what from the tittytainment media. I urge anyone here to show me that this would be any different on any continent. Puh-lee-ze?

And, ready4, I'll bet I have pics to make you jealous... :neener:

AntiqueCollector

July 23, 2007, 06:19 PM

And we managed that quite nicely without asking for any help from you, thank you very much.

And respectfully, the Brits would have lost had we not given them help (we gave them lots of supplies and such) even before we entered the war. They had foolishly disarmed themselves even before Hitler came to power. Russia came very close to falling, and if we hadn't helped the Brits as we did which prevented Hitler from getting them, likely, Russia would have fallen.

igor

July 23, 2007, 06:28 PM

AC, allow me to clarify: the one capital I'm talking about and the whole point of the rant was Helsinki.

Sage of Seattle

July 23, 2007, 06:30 PM

the freedom of Americans' seems a bit too much for me.

'Nuff said.

Isildur

July 24, 2007, 05:07 AM

A forget about arguing with European Antis - it's pointless. There are some people you can convince but the majority is ignoring the facts.

Comparing US and European crime rates leads you nowhere since a crime rate is determined by many factors and you simply cannot compare them this way. Every guy with even a faint idea of statistics will tell you that.

There are about 1Million legal weapons in Germany. Let's assume for simplicity that every gun owner owns 10 guns, that makes a total of 100.000 legal gun owners. With 100.000 knowing what their talking about how should they convince 80.000.000 people who know guns solely from the media(which is as biased as the US media if not worse)?

I don't know it - it's dangerous - let's ban it. That's it.

I've discussed this issue in endless debates(which I cannot quote since they're German) and there were maybe a handful of people whom you could describe as open minded the rest are complete antis who do not even bother to respond to arguments(let alone present arguments themselves).

Europe has some advantages but when it comes to gun-control this continent is lost - maybe I'll move to the US when I finished school and university...

Dannavyret

July 24, 2007, 09:10 AM

Europeans will always fall easily to new tyrants. Hitler was the last one, Islamic extremists are the next. Within two decades both France and England will be knee deep in Islamo-fascism.

Anyone feel the need to save these idiots a 4th time?

The Viking

July 24, 2007, 09:34 AM

17poundr: What in Hades are you yelling about? Racist? No effin way. We DO have a problem here. Some immigrant groups have an unemployment rate of 60-80% last I heard. Want to know why Sweden has taken in so many illiterates who'll never get a job? Don't have a job? You live on the dole? Which political party supports the massive welfare program we suffer with now? The leftist parties collectivly. Then these illiterates get a citizenship, often without having worked a single day since they arrived, often without speaking Swedish. And being citizens means they get to vote. Guess who they vote for? They are nothing but cattle. Electional cattle brought in to keep the Social Democratic Party in power. I can't tell you how much I HATE the (present day) Social Democrats. Chicago Democrats have dead people voting for them. Can't really do that here, so we get new people who depend on the Social Democrats to get their money. The arrogance that they show sickens me to no end. They feel that Social Democrats=The Rightful Rulers. Everything else is just inconceivable for them. Why, people who voted for the right-of-center alliance are obviously demented, egoistic fascists, neo-nazis, or company executives who dare to say that they want to make a profit out of their company! How dare they! After all, the purpose of private corporations is to serve the State after all.

The Viking

July 24, 2007, 09:36 AM

Europe has some advantages but when it comes to gun-control this continent is lost - maybe I'll move to the US when I finished school and university...
I'm thinking along the same lines. Start studying, get a degree, get a green card, live free and happy (and watch the old country going to hell :(. Guess not much can be done about it :()

rangerruck

July 24, 2007, 11:12 AM

give them quotes, fromt their dudes, from the 1500''s on, about self defense.

Isildur

July 24, 2007, 11:31 AM

Yeah the problem is that although the won't really agree with these statements on self-defense they would argue that self-defense does not imply the need for a gun. If you tell them that the criminal has a gun so you should better get one as well they'll probably say that you should make it harder for criminals to get a gun or that if you give more people access to guns more criminals would have guns as well.

You're pretty much caught in a circle of BS and every false statement is defended with two other false statements.

Tom Fury

July 24, 2007, 12:51 PM

And Brits are hypocrites about violence. They deplore it, but excuse it at the same time. I don't understand how a football game can turn into a riot here and they can still perceive us as being somehow more violent than they are. A friend of mine and his girlfriend were mugged here three weeks ago, by three guys with a hammer. Yes, he went to A&E. Generally mugged in the US means you will lose your money and cards; over here, someone will try to send you to the hospital.
They quite abhor us as violent by nature; being interested in firearms or self defense at all will get you classed as violent, dangerous and crazy. In order to take the guns, they had to demonize them and anyone who disagreed. Then they had to sell the idea that self defense was wrong (and it is illegal). And now many cry about whats' to be done, and can't face the inevitable.
This is a bit of a rant, but I've been in the UK a year now and my most common response to anyone's complaints about the "way things are" has become: "And how long are you going to put up with that?" Say what you want about Americans being quick on the trigger, British tolerance flavored with arrogance makes this a scary place to be.
Interesting to see that they are arming all their cops in some larger cities now. This generates a lot of raised eyebrows, but evidently the threat of terrorism is finally becoming great enough to overcome their hypocrisy about violent crime.
Anyone see BBC Americas' "The State Within?" Pretty good TV, and interesting take on how Europeans (Brits especially) see us. Brits imagine themselves as the only rational people left in the world.
I think they're more oppressed than any because they should know better, and won't come off the conceit.
As someone said to me (who should have known better) "Well, when you say you're an American, it does conjure a certain image, doesn't it?"

Homer Simpson in a Uncle Sam suit (with a .45?).

I don't think that tea party was just about tea...

"Got somethin' better to do on the lake today, Major?"
Last of the Mohicans

Cheers, TF

Isildur

July 24, 2007, 01:32 PM

Then they had to sell the idea that self defense was wrong (and it is illegal). And now many cry about whats' to be done, and can't face the inevitable.There may be exceptions but to a large degree those who cry about what the situation is like today never supported and to a certain degree "resisted" the development in the past(at least in endless arguments with Antis).(Edit:Or did I get you wrong and you refer to the Antis crying about the rising crimes rates etc.?)

Although I agree that we have a lot of jerks here in Europe there are always some people who've got their mind right - so please do not generalize although it probably looks attractive.

Anti-Americanism is widespread across Europe but there are also people with a different view(like me). Generally there are some conservatives and libertarians who oppose it although they are only a tiny minority.

I do not want to find excuses for this BS, I simply want to mention that there are always people who oppose the BS and I for example certainly do because otherwise I would not be here but on some German Anti-Forums instead.

Tom Fury

July 24, 2007, 04:12 PM

Haven't tried to do this argument with anyone else;

There is a mentality here that condemns all "violence", and brings SD under that heading. The argument goes, as someone said elsewhere yesterday; "violence begets violence."
I often hear all the anti mantras; "If you own a gun, they'll just take it and use it on you." "It makes you as bad as they are." As if the gun itself has some magical power to turn men violent.
I have noticed something about Brits: Underneath, they're all fighters. Forget the Nazis, the VC, the Taliban; never, ever corner a Brit; they'll take you down too. Not saying they're inherently violent, but in combat, they're devils.
I think the British Govt. knows this and just doesn't trust them with weapons. I Rev was enough.

A lot of this discussion in Europe should be about power; and how come the individual has less and less of it, as more and more is exchanged for financial security of a sort thru Government control. You are told you surrendered it for something better, but I haven't heard what that is and I believe its' an inflated illusion of restraint, reasonableness and civility.

Outlaws will never respect it anyway.

Remember the X-File where the BG is holding a gun on Scully, threatening "I'll shoot her!" and Mulder, staring down the sights of his S&W 5906, asks him: "And then what do you think will happen?" (Groundhog Day) Violent men must be stopped; how else do you do that? There is a moral code that makes the must an imperative. Evil, violent men seem to have no fear of retribution for their actions, but they should.
One is no less evil because they are civil about it.

Not generalizing beyond UK: I refer to the average man on the street I usually encounter in the village market. Noteable exceptions are older Brits, and shooters (I am referring to the local pheasant shoot group, all save one (ex army) over 50 with very expensive (gorgeous) shotguns and Land Rovers.

Americans are perceived as senselessly violent as a whole society. They love it on our telly, but believing they are the last rational people on the planet, deplore it in our society.

Others have argued that the freedoms Americans enjoy and the mentality it creates are just unfathomable to most on the Continent and the UK. I agree. You are not having this discussion on a level playing field; the average European believes he is assuming the moral high ground, and the average Yank thinks the Euro hasn't a clue what hes' talking about.
I think they have been brainwashed into their chains and taught to argue for them.

There was some brainwashing involved:Don't kid yourself about how American guns will be taken; they'll come for your brain first.

Hating Americans is the new black; you don't have to know why you do it; its' just cool. We thought we were somehow immune from such ignorance/arrogance.
Having said all that, I think we're due for a rethink about how we do business too
So much for rational, reasonable: they don't always get it done.
TF

budney

July 24, 2007, 04:42 PM

Americans are perceived as senselessly violent as a whole society. They love it on our telly, but believing they are the last rational people on the planet, deplore it in our society.

That's a big part of the problem. They imagine that gunfights are erupting on every street corner. We may have more shootings than they do, but it's still a small number against the overall population (and, IIUC, they have more rapes than we do). In short, they watch way too much TV.

I think they have been brainwashed into their chains and taught to argue for them.

Quote of the day.

--Len.

Dave Workman

July 24, 2007, 04:51 PM

Well, right after Virginia Tech, I wound up doing a lot of air time on the BBC. During one 24-hour stretch, the blighters woke me up at 11 p.m. and again at about 2:30 a.m. and then one afternoon one sweet lady found me vial cell-phone on the side of a mountain, bucking up a log with my chainsaw, and just seemed all goose pimples over the fact that here was this Yank tramping around the Western forests with a sixgun, lopping down winter firewood...or some such nonsense.

Anyway, this one twerp got me on the air and began quizzing me about why Americans are so enamored with firearms.

A: "It's because of these guns that we're no longer British subjects."

That seemed to get his attention.
Then one of these knotheads tried to corner me about America being such a dangerous place with all of these armed citizens.

A: "Well, if this is such a rotten country, tell me why so many people are trying to sneak in instead of lining up to get out."

Yep, that's what I'd tell him. And make yourself sound "colorful." Europeans, especially the Brits, are enamored with "colorful Yanks." That one gal kept telling me I sounded right out of a John Ford cinema (whatever the hell that is).

Oh, and don't forget to mention that "Beef is what's fer dinner"

They love that.

JohnL2

July 24, 2007, 05:24 PM

I have noticed something about Brits: Underneath, they're all fighters. Forget the Nazis, the VC, the Taliban; never, ever corner a Brit; they'll take you down too. Not saying they're inherently violent, but in combat, they're devils.

(chuckling) I don't doubt that. Those soccer riots are a trip. Also, general hooliganism can match any gangbanger here in brutality.

A lot of this discussion in Europe should be about power; and how come the individual has less and less of it, as more and more is exchanged for financial security of a sort thru Government control. You are told you surrendered it for something better, but I haven't heard what that is and I believe its' an inflated illusion of restraint, reasonableness and civility.

Seems to be a trend in Western society. It's slowly but surely happening here.
Beware of ingenious sophistry.

DomMega

July 24, 2007, 05:49 PM

I usually tear people up in online anti-gun debates. Most base their logic in a nonsensical diatribe of false information and random social bias. Especially in Europe where the general philosophy is, "Well, I can't legally own guns, so why should you?" I've come to find out over the years through talking to people from Europe, Russia, China, Japan, the Middle East, and even the Caribbean that crime exists everywhere, bottom line. Sometimes that crime isn't mortally wounding but more of an inconvenience. Sometimes people who put their guard down in the same places where the inconvenient happens, end up losing their lives because they were dealing with a much more violent individual that day. It's always the same arguments, like in Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" where he presents the audience with a bunch of half-truths and doctored information and expects them to eat it up completely. The sad thing is that most people do and have a hard time concluding their own ideas so they rely on others. When we find ourselves residing with the majority its best to step back and reflect on whats going on, so says Mark Twain.

I'm sure the Jews in Nazi-controlled Germany enjoyed being disarmed so that they had no way of defending themselves against government tyranny by Hitler before they were shipped off in trains and killed at death camps. Hitler knew that an armed "scapegoat" would be that much harder to take control over than an unarmed "scapegoat." You can go anywhere in this debate. My first inclination would be to start giving them some statistics about falling crime in areas where CCW's are allowed and how in places like Los Angeles crime is out of control. I didn't read all 5 pages of this but if nobody has taken the Switzerland stance yet thats always practically mandatory your first time debating the anti's.

And also, give them the link to the Penn and Teller "Bull$hit" episode regarding the fallacy of gun control and how it makes no sense.

Blackbeard

July 24, 2007, 07:31 PM

America isn't all that violent. I've lived here my entire life and have yet to hear a shot fired in anger.

TEDDY

July 24, 2007, 09:04 PM

No one has brought up the fact that the gov of USA arms the people. remember the DCM or as now CMP.I bought springfields for $15-- 45 colts for $18.--carbines for $20.now their much more. and the answer to all arguments is get your selves another sucker the next time your over run.Id say socialism is winning in euro. :uhoh: :) :confused:

Fosbery

July 25, 2007, 02:13 AM

I can remember when the British government sold off its L39 sniper rifles and bullpup L98-GP rifles to civillian shooters. My father remembered when every man who could hold a rifle was given one, or a sten gun or bren gun or some such. Nowadays though it would be a scandal in the media if the government was caught selling guns to British citizens. The people don't even trust themselves.

Not every Brit, or indeed every European, is an anti. And even those who are vary in their degrees from those who have simply accepted the general consensus without ever giving it much thought, to vehement anti-freedom loons. I think you'll find most are the former and, if arguments are put to them in the right way, they will at least come to see your position as reasonable, even if they don't agree. Many more can be turned pro-gun of course, they just need talking to in the right way.

langenc

July 25, 2007, 09:45 AM

Dommega-the Jews now have a motto-- "NEVER AGAIN" referring to them. It is odd that nearly 100% of Jews in the US congress are ANTI 2A-big time. But someone in their midst says "NEVER AGAIN????"

PILMAN

July 25, 2007, 02:06 PM

Dommega-the Jews now have a motto-- "NEVER AGAIN" referring to them. It is odd that nearly 100% of Jews in the US congress are ANTI 2A-big time. But someone in their midst says "NEVER AGAIN????"

That's because they believe no one else should be armed except themselves. Look at Feinstein, she has a CCW permit yet it's nearly impossible for anyone else to get a concealment permit in California. I talk to Jewish friends who live there and end up carrying concealed illegally (not saying it's right) because it's nearly impossible. Not sure what the deal is with the politicians.

JWarren

July 25, 2007, 02:55 PM

Not sure what the deal is with the politicians.

--Power.

--Control.

--Living outside the "Real" World.

--Villianizing and scapegoating to get votes.

--Covering the fact that they have NO real and workable plan to address crime.

--Pandering to special interest groups.

--Redirection of blame so that failed social and cultural initiatives are not blamed.

--Have listened to John Lennon's "Imagine" too many times and actually believe that is possible.

--Hasn't figured out how to make people and human nature illegal.... yet.

Think I hit most of them.

-- John

Silvanus

July 25, 2007, 04:01 PM

Is it really that bad?

Guns are just not a part of our culture as they are in America. When you mention guns to people who don't know anything about them, they mostly think about Hollywood movies and videogames. Of course those paint a rather negative picture of gun ownership. Most people will say that it is OK to hunt and to do bullseye shooting and things like that but they will question the "need" (and of course "need" is only one of many reasons we buy guns) for military style fireams.
Concealed carry is virtually impossible for civilians in Europe. So self defence with firearms doesn't exist. Even if you shoot an intruder in your home you're most likely to be punished yourself. That sucks, period. I live in the country and it's quite peaceful out here, but crime is pretty bad in a lot of the bigger cities. The Government would rather see you beat up or stabbed than give you the right to defend yourself with a firearm. You can't reason with the antis.
Our very own history, as well as statistics on crime rates after allowing concealed carry in your country, proves them wrong, but whatever...The important people are protected by armed bodyguards anyway, so what's the big deal? And there's always the "professionals" (police) who might arrive half an hour after a call:rolleyes:
I wish we had the freedom you people have in the US *sigh*

spankaveli

July 25, 2007, 04:38 PM

Don't bother responding. Do you really think you are going to change his/her mind?
came in here to post this

patentmike

July 25, 2007, 09:59 PM

You mean Eurabia?

Does the person you are arguing with avoid certain areas because of the "disaffected youth"?

Europe is history.

Tom Fury

July 26, 2007, 07:51 AM

" He recalled the old British spy chief in the window table at Whites' as the left wing demonstrators went by...
..."They'll never forgive you, dear boy," said the old man. "Never expect it and you'll never be disappointed. Your country is a constant reproach. It is rich to their poor, strong to their weak, vigorous to their idle, enterprising to their reactionary, ingenious to their bewildered, can-do to their sit-and-wait,thrusting to their stunted.
It only needs one demagogue to arise to shout: "Everything the Americans have they stole from you", and they'll believe it. Like Shakespeares' Caliban,their zealots stare in the mirror and roar in rage at what they see.

That rage becomes hatred, the hatred needs a target. The working class of the third world does not hate you, it is the pseudointellectuals. If they ever forgive you, they must indict themselves.
So far, their hatred lacks the weaponry.
One day they will acquire that weaponry.
Then you will have to fight or die.
Not in tens but in tens of thousands."
Thirty years down the line, Devereaux was sure the old Brit had got it right. After Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Aden, his country was in a new war and did not know it. The tragedy was made worse by the fact the establishment was steeped in ostriches as well."

I've been pondering this lately, and some other statements he makes about Hate/Terrorism.

Frederick Forsyth/Avenger.
Cheers, TF

Remontoire

July 26, 2007, 03:11 PM

\\\"Well, I can\\\'t legally own guns, so why should you?\\\"

Where in Europe is that country ? It used to be the case ... in communist Eastern Europe. 18 years ago.

Even the most Orwellian country, the UK, allows people to own some guns.
Owning semi-auto handguns is perfectly legal in my country, and getting a permit is maybe a one week affair that\\\'ll put you back 30$.

If you are a hard core gun freak( or collector), it\\\'s even possible to browbeat the state into letting you own .50 cal machine guns ... it\\\'s hard but it\\\'s been done.
(that\\\'s the situation in Czech Republic... elsewhere, auto weapons are generally banned, but other weapons are quite available)

Concealed carry is quite possible, in some places. It is here. (Czechia and Slovakia) If you shoot someone in your home, and it\'s not your wife and it\'s deemed to be reasonable defense (he isn\'t holed from the back...), expect some legal hassle, but you won\'t go to jail for long..(maybe for the night)

----------

You mean Eurabia?
Does the person you are arguing with avoid certain areas because of the \\\"disaffected youth\\\"?
Europe is history.

Hardly. We Europeans were content to sit back let Serbs massacre the Albanians. (and then look hypocritically outraged, while secretly being glad someone did the dirty work).- We don\\\'t like them, no one likes them. But then you American killjoys stepped in... not to help the Serbs dispose of a worthless, nasty, drug* and slave dealing, Muslim nationality ... but to save it! Kosovo was one huge welfare slum, and it is now, only it has more crime since NATO threw the Serbs out.
Everyone was flabbergasted.

*usually, the word Albanian, is never used in a sentence which does not contain the word \\\'heroin\\\'. All gangs smuggling heroin have Albanians in them..
Europe, my friend, has a history of genocide. (remember WWII ? Now, the Germans had a bright idea with Gypsies, anyone who ever lived by a gypsy family\\\'ll tell you, but exterminating a race of lawyers, doctors, and engineers is just grossly irresponsible and wasteful )

When the going with Muslims gets rough, \\\'ze Germans\\\' and other Europeans\\\'ll do what comes naturally to humans .. fight the \\\'other\\\', tooth and nail, to the last breath. I know I will. That it\\\'ll be easy to distinguish them, by their dark skins, or in case of converts by their cut foreskins\\\'ll only make it easier---
We may have 50 million Muslims by then, but Europe has 550 million people alltogether and lots of firearms manufacturers... even If we discount the Russians with their expertise at killing Muslims of all shapes and sizes, and their world-famous instrument design bureaus...

Fosbery

July 26, 2007, 03:29 PM

Indeed, here in the Uk the only people who can't own guns are those convicted of an offence punishable by more than three years in prison (i.e. felons) and the mentally unstable (including drug addicts, not including gun nuts luckily:p). Shooting an attacker is fine as long as he is in fact an attacker i.e. not running away.

Vern Humphrey

July 26, 2007, 03:35 PM

\\\"Well, I can\\\'t legally own guns, so why should you?\\\"
Because although criminals can't legally own guns, they do own them. And because as I get older, I find it becomes more and more strenuous to duke it out with multiple attackers armed with knives and clubs.

wjustinen

July 27, 2007, 02:12 PM

My father was wounded in action in Europe in WW2 liberating Holland. My response would be:

Get yourself a gun and learn to use it because if I have anything to do with it my children and grandchildren will never put their lives on the line to pull your fat out of the fire when your life is shattered by inevitable tyranny.

Those who refuse to protect their own have no business telling others how to live their lives. :fire:

Vern Humphrey

July 27, 2007, 02:28 PM

That's why I admire Blondie Hassler. Hassler was a Royal Marine who commanded the Cockleshell Heros in WWII. Later on, he was quite a yachtsman and orgainized the OSTAR (Observer Singlehanded Trans-Atlantic Race.) He used to say yachtsmen should not carry radio transmitters, "Because we to to sea for our own pleasure, and if we get in trouble we have no right to call on other men to risk their lives for us."

I would expand that -- those who will not defend themselves have no right to call on other men to risk their lives to protect them.

Scorpiusdeus

July 27, 2007, 02:37 PM

I just had an idea. Tell him you'll just agree to disagree, but not to worry because we'll be there to save their asses "again" the next time they are overrun or up against it.

barman

July 27, 2007, 04:53 PM

Tell him to mind his own business.

You are American, he is European. Different cultures, different histories.

Tell him he's being a bigoted xenophobic moron who won't make an effort to understand another way of life.

THAT should hurt a left-winger. You gotta fight fire with fire.

sterling180

July 27, 2007, 05:17 PM

I can remember when the British government sold off its L39 sniper rifles and bullpup L98-GP rifles to civillian shooters. My father remembered when every man who could hold a rifle was given one, or a sten gun or bren gun or some such. Nowadays though it would be a scandal in the media if the government was caught selling guns to British citizens. The people don't even trust themselves.

I can remember hearing about police forces in the UK selling off their old Smith and Wesson Revolvers on the civillian market,for pistol shooters,in the days before Dunblane.These guns were a bargain basement for practical shooters too,cheaper than a brand new revolver or a Glock.

People seem to forget,that element that makes this nation strong,because at the moment it is run by liberal hippies dressed up as Tory suits,but at least the Tories openly supported shooting sports,to some degree,but they were stuffy bigots and full of you know what.

As for this bumbling prat of an anti,please tell him that there are many shooters in his country and that his country manufactures guns anyway and so get stuffed.

barman

July 27, 2007, 05:23 PM

As for this bumbling prat of an anti,please tell him that there are many shooters in his country and that his country manufactures guns anyway and so get stuffed.

Great point.

Tell him that American law isn't based on hypocrisy, unlike many European laws on firearms.

barman

July 27, 2007, 05:34 PM

I can remember my uncle regularly shooting his sub-machine guns. He was an Indochina war veteran. He owned a Mat 49 and an MP-40.

That was all before 1995. :cuss:

Nicky Santoro

July 27, 2007, 06:02 PM

How should I respond to an anti from europe?

Europeans are irrelevant to the discussion on RKBA here, or anywhere else for that matter. Break wind in his general direction then log off.

barman

July 27, 2007, 06:06 PM

Europeans are irrelevant to the discussion on RKBA here, or anywhere else for that matter

I beg to differ. Sterling180 and I, being both Europeans, have shown that we are pro-guns.

Don't think that Europe is all made-up of clones. I'm sure you can imagine that many of us (while still a minority) are on your side of the matter.

kbarrett

July 27, 2007, 06:33 PM

I just ask them how do they intend to disarm me? It's kinda hard when you have no weapons yourself.

My own government cannot use the army to disarm a bunch of Al Qaiada barbarians in Iraq ... so how can they possibly prevent me from being armed? EU governments cannot prevent criminals from getting firearms ... so don't even consider using your governments methods, as they have proven useless.

Antis can whine until they are blue in the face. I will not be disarmed, regardless. Even a if a total ban happened in the US tomorrow, I would still find a way to stay armed. An outlaw maybe ... but still armed.

So ... I guess these folks will just have to get used to the idea of armed Americans. Too bad for them.

Fosbery

July 27, 2007, 07:11 PM

Europeans are pretty relevent to the RKBA in Europe :rolleyes: And also in the USA for that matter. When it comes to that sort of thing, what happens in Europe will happen to America in time.

sterling180

July 28, 2007, 08:41 AM

As far as safety goes, I am shocked that people feel so insecure on the streets in America. What kind of Mad Max society have you got going there? The worst 'bad guys' I encounter sometimes are people that openly laugh at me for wearing a cool hat. I've never in my entire life been confronted with a gun in a threatening way (i.e. as something other than a museum piece). Surely this is a much more relaxed organisation of a society than one where everyone has a cocked gun under his shirt, always on the look-out for some madcap aggressor?

Mad Max was a near-future movie set in the 1990s when the world and every countries society on the planet,was gradually collapsing inwards and the movies were set on the eve of and after a nuclear war,that wiped out most of life on the planet and lawlessness was rife because of the social breakdown in society.We live in a stable society and these problems aren't occuring now but maybe in the future when all natural resources are expended.

So theres no comparison between a lawless post-apocalypse Australian society and a North American society,that is thriving still.I don't know where these jokers get their info from,sometimes.

Tom Fury,your previous comments about the brits are true to some degree but not all people are like this.The gun laws were brough in to stop anti-social sociapaths,who were members of the shooting community in the UK,I wasn't brough in to stop violent crime at all.Now every idiot knows that these laws won't work at all and violent crime will continue to rise,especially in the black communities,because they have their feuds with other black people.

People who support anti-groups target everyone,irrespective of anything and these people are ordinary UK citizens too.No one really wants guns here anymore,because they don't want them and there is no plot to disarm us at all,it is that society is more liberal then before.

The Hungerford and Dunblane killers were both morbid and very insane and this prompted the decision to take action,preventing another massacre of innocent people.Most people would,in my country allow ethnics to kill each other,because they aren't worth the time or effort.

My own government cannot use the army to disarm a bunch of Al Qaiada barbarians in Iraq ... so how can they possibly prevent me from being armed? EU governments cannot prevent criminals from getting firearms ... so don't even consider using your governments methods, as they have proven useless.

Think about it very carefully:gun bans were brough in to protect people against psychos in their communities,who were not previously criminals.When they say criminals they mean would-be criminals.Most normal people can't blow away 30 or more people with an AK47,like Rambo Ryan did,now can they?

Tommygunn

July 28, 2007, 02:52 PM

Think about it very carefully:gun bans were brough in to protect people against psychos in their communities,who were not previously criminals.When they say criminals they mean would-be criminals.Most normal people can't blow away 30 or more people with an AK47,like Rambo Ryan did,now can they?

Ahem ... yeah ... it's not like psychos can't use weapons other than firearms to commit atrocities with. I seem to recall an incident when someone ran throush Harrod's in London (a major department store) and attacked @ 18 people with a knife.
But, then, I hear the Brits are getting into knife control now, too.
" ... gun bans were brough in to protect people against psychos in their communities,who were not previously criminals..." So, if I comprehend this correctly (which I suppose could be debated...) there are people who for no apparant reason suddenly go "psycho," and start killing people??? Hmmmm. Maybe verrrrrryyyy rarely. I should think if one were to investigate the background of these people there would have been something there to warn an observant person the guy wasn't well.
A great deal of crime is commited by serious, repeat offenders. Very rarely does an individual, who is truly sane and normal, go ... "psycho."
People who support anti-groups target everyone,irrespective of anything and these people are ordinary UK citizens too.No one really wants guns here anymore,because they don't want them and there is no plot to disarm us at all,it is that society is more liberal then before.

I don't think I would necessarily call it a "plot." It certainly is part of an agenda, and the rest of the quote only confirms that. But I don't necessarily have to ascribe something to a "plot" or a "conspiracy" to decry it, or to regard it as part of some vile ... "agenda," .... "political movement'' or...well, insert your own choice of phrase here... to be oppossed to it philosophically.
"No one really wants guns here anymore, because they don't want them ...." Perhaps the British people are truly of that opinion, as a majority. I suppose I should respect their opinion, but I question it's righteousness. Theoretically, in America, we have the Constitution and the B.O.R.s to protect the minority from the majority's opinion. It has been said that a democracy is "two wolves and one sheep voting on lunch."
Leaving things to a "democratic vote" is how republics devolve into tyrannies.
As James Fenimore Cooper stated; "It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of people exhibit their tyranny."
...And to some it up, there is another quote from the American jurist, Judge Learned Hand; "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." (1944)

wahsben

July 28, 2007, 07:19 PM

This is a comment posted by Asc on KABA I am not sure if they are the original author but they say it very well. It is a comment made pertaining to an article from Canada titled We must stand up for non-violence.
Asc's comment on this was:
"I am standing up for non-violence. That is why I carry.
I behave non-violently to all who do not threaten me,and I expect them to behave non-violently towards me. My gun is there in case one of the people I meet does not return the courtesy of my non-violence; it allows me to not be a victim of their aggression, which means their violence toward me is thwarted.

The essence of nonviolence,right there.Allowing someone to attack me without me mounting a strong defense is not non-violent,for the bad guy is doing great violence toward me,and by not opposing it, I am allowing violence to prevail, and encouraging the assailant to do great violence towards others too.
Not resisting crime does a great violence on all of us.

Fosbery

July 28, 2007, 08:15 PM

I have to agree with Sterling in that I seriously doubt that those British governments who have tightened firearms restrictions were doing so to make a more compliant population - with the exception, and a very significant one, of the original Firearms Act 1920 - which was designed to prevent communist revolutionaries stockpiling weapons without the government knowing so. The rest, I believe, were simple attempts to be seen to be doing something to reduce crime in order to get votes. The handgun ban for instance. They did not believe that by taking handguns away from the few thousand target shooters and collectors in Britain was a cornerstone of their plan to take over the galaxy - it was just politically popular.

sterling180

July 29, 2007, 11:28 AM

Fosbery is spot on about the last gun ban,but It was popular because the GCN used every trick in the book to discredit the shooting community and also polititions felt a tremendous amount of remorse for the dead victims of Dunblane.Labour was a Scottish party and many of it's top-brass people are Scottish or of Scottish origin.

As for the crime part,If you remember Fosbery 5 years ago,during this time,the Sportsmans Association got a response from David Blunkett,when they started the campaign to restore handgun ownership on the mainland.Blunkett said that although the ban had no adverse effect on handgun crime,it was specifically designed to stop sales of handguns legally,to prevent another gun massacre and psychos like handguns,too.

The Home Office concluded,that this ban is the price that you have to pay for a safer society,because they thought after Hamilton-who do you trust?

Fosbery

July 29, 2007, 12:21 PM

The really stupid thing of course is that the fact that Hamilton's guns were less than 60cm in length had nothing at all to do with his ability to kill children. Today he could do exactly the same thing with a Benneli M2 or a Remmy 1100. Hell, he could stick a high-cap magazine on a 10/22 and clean out a shopping center if he liked, or take down a jumbo jet with a Barrett .50 (if we believe the US anti-gun propoganda! :scrutiny:). Or just pick up a cavalry sabre from the local antique shop and go crazy in a church, or make himself a bomb like the 7/7 guys did.

G36-UK

July 29, 2007, 01:01 PM

It was popular because the GCN used every trick in the book to discredit the shooting community

I didn't know about that. I heard about them beating up Mike Yardley, but not about the discrediting. Can you give some examples?

sterling180

July 29, 2007, 02:07 PM

I didn't know about that. I heard about them beating up Mike Yardley, but not about the discrediting. Can you give some examples?

They used to have a strong poster campaign going and still do to some degree.Sean Connery and Helen Mirren were to my knowledge were featured in anti-gun adverts during 1996 onwards.I know that Connery definately participated in the campaign,because he was sickened at the Dunblane massacre and of the suffering of the surviving victims,during the aftermarth.Helen Mirren was used in an advert,back then,but Im not too sure about it-although she did feature in an advert featuring imitation guns and Brocock air-cartridge air-guns in 2004/05.

The way the GCN discredited the shooting community was,that they wrote a load of old tripe about 'practical pistol' shooting and cowboy action shooting,stating that semi-auto pistols and cartridge 1885s,were dangerous weapons,unnessecary,etc,etc and this is how both Hamilton and Ryan,the two madmen,perfected their skills with deadly efficiency.9mms were targeted too,because Hamilton used a HI-Power fitted with a extended 30 rnd mag.They even tried with blackpowder revolvers too,but were stopped.

Im sure G36UK,that some of the stuff that you have probably read on the GCNs website,is recycled old-campaign stuff,from the birth of that annoying organization.That article about practical shooting was an old one from 1997 and another one was from 1999.They used a channel 4 undercover reporter,to infiltrate a Home Office gun club,where members were using lever-actions and blackpowder pistols.One guy joked about cutting-down the 1895,so that he could be Arnie,so that was translated into irresposible nutcases and these weapons use pistol ammo,because the rifles used .357 and 44 magnum ammo.

Finally there was the Edinburgh campaign and marches in 1996,where they encouraged 750,000 to sign up for an anti-handgun petition,to be handed to the then PM John Major,at Downing Street.

G36-UK

July 29, 2007, 07:34 PM

Im sure G36UK,that some of the stuff that you have probably read on the GCNs website,is recycled old-campaign stuff,from the birth of that annoying organization.

Yep. They also had some anti-replica posters, that a few friends had great fun photoshopping.

One guy joked about cutting-down the 1895,so that he could be Arnie,so that was translated into irresposible nutcases and these weapons use pistol ammo,because the rifles used .357 and 44 magnum ammo.

Ah. I can see how they twisted that (although the Arnie comment might have made it a little easier, despite it being a joke).

It's been at least ten years since the ban, so why haven't the UK gun groups tried to get the ban repealed?

I mean, there's the SAGBNI analysis on their forums about how Hamiton got his guns due to police failings. I'm pretty sure they used the Cullen Inquiry as a source, but the Cullen Report that was published comes to a different conclusion, and misses important parts out that SAGBNI have not only mentioned, but also added to their lists.

Given some of the GCN's tactics you've mentioned, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find people who've been slandered by them. Heck, see if Mike Yardley will give his account of what happened when they encountered each other*.

They lied (and worse) to discredit the gun groups, but would it be so bad if you guys did the same thing using the truth? I mean, they're the reason the ban was passed in the first place. Show the people and the Gov what they're really like, and let's see if we can get rid of the ban, for good*.

*(BTW, you wouldn't know if he'd post online about the conference where they "met"? The only references I know of are a site that's passed into history (along with the site I found the link on), and a .pdf file that just has a description written out, which has no mentioned author. I'm not doubting the facts of the matter, I just would like to hear his side of things rather than come to the wrong conclusions.)

**Meant in both the figurative and literal sense.

ctdonath

July 29, 2007, 10:29 PM

<skipping 6 pages...>

What is a fact though is that a gun is a tool for killing.
Yes it is. Some people need killing - particularly when someone is going to die, and the only deciding factor between whether that someone is the good person or the bad person is a good person with a gun.
society hardly needs every person to own weapons.
The interests of the collective and the individual are often starkly at odds.
you make it seem like it is the only thing that keeps a government from becoming a tyranny, but this is hardly what has happened in Europe, where no one carries guns.
<Insert blank "wow, that's a really ignorant comment" look here>
I am shocked that people feel so insecure on the streets in America. What kind of Mad Max society have you got going there?
We don't feel insecure.
We have guns.
It's England, France, etc. that have growing violence rates so high that they're not even newsworthy.
gun owners will state that guns are necessary to rise up to their government if necessary.
Yup.
15 years ago the US government tried a couple high-profile high-violence assaults on citizens (aka Waco and Ruby Ridge) for alleged paperwork violations. The citizens fought back. Most of the ones involved died, but in doing so they inflicted so much harm on the government agents that such crap has never been tried again since.
It occurs to me that it has never been more necessary than in the last eight years, going from the amount of damage the US has done to international relationships and wars. But where were all the gun-toting citizens?
On the whole, supporting the actions. We understand that sometimes violence is needed to prevent worse violence ... while we watch European countries kowtow to the demands of terrorists and oppressors.

akodo

July 29, 2007, 10:37 PM

one concept that seems to pop up a lot with europeans in anti-gun discussions is basically "so this guy tries to kill you, but you kill him first, homicide is still done, there is still one man dead" as if somehow self defence is a crime. At least american antis try and say something along the lines of "you will shoot yourself/someone else by accident, you will get angry and kill in a moment of rage, or a criminal will get someone's legal gun and use it for murder"

Well, if there is going to be one dead person regardless, I'd much prefer it be him rather than me.

For some reason that still doesn't sink in. I have had limited success with the following scenario.

Look, your daugher has just been grabbed by a rapist, are you saying she should just meekly co-operate, take her pants off and lay down? Or would you suggest she kick and scream and claw and try and get away. Now before you say it, yes, there might be times, like when he threatens with a weapon, were it might be best to co-operate to live...of course you are betting on a criminal keeping his word and letting a witness live. But you admit there might be times where kicking and clawing and fighting might be the right choice, like if there is a serial rapist in the area who has been killing his victims afterward. The only real objection to the victim clawing her rapist's face is that it might cause him to do her more harm. Yet no one is worried that clawing a rapist's face in attempting to escape is the same as if your daughter would walk up to a man on the street and claw his face with no good reason. You still have a man with a clawed face. I don't know if 'he got what is coming to him' is the right term, but it is close. Same way with a defensive shooting.

Fosbery

July 30, 2007, 10:30 AM

G36,

Most of the UK gun lobby groups were so paralyzed with guilt over Dunblane that their efforts at stopping the ban were half-hearted at best. After it went through, they sort of dried up and didn't do much. Groups like the NRA and BASC are only interested in sporting purposes - hunting and target shooting. They don't give the slightest consideration to self-defence. They seem to have been so scarred by the beating they took in '96/97 that they now play along with the government like good little prols - always accepting current government policy as reasonable restrictions but asking politely for no more.

I often say we need a really forthright gun lobby group, like JPFO or the NRA of the USA, but a lot of gun owners here don't like the idea. They prefer to stay quietly out of the way and hope people just forget about them and don't ban anything else. Going on marches with Oleg's pics on placards, they think, will only make us out to be Rambo-wannabe psychos and incur more bans. They may well be right in truth - do you remember when a member of parliament had his picture taken with a legally owned levergun and a pair of blackpowder revolvers? The media instantly branded him, you guessed it, a Rambo-wannabe psycho, and he was forced to resign. That's what we have to deal with in this country.

However, there has been a campaign recently to have the pistol ban repealed. Unfortunately, it seems to have very mixed messages about exactly what we are asking for. It gained some media attention a while back but not much. The government have agreed to allow the Olympic team to bring their guns back from Switzerland/Belgium etc to train for a while before the games, but after that they have to leave the country again. Since I'm not on the Olympic team, my guns will be staying away full-stop.

sterling180

July 30, 2007, 11:05 AM

This G36UK,is the result of a Labour government that Is highly influenced by an organization like the GCN,who are at the same level as the animal-rights activists,muslim bombers,BNP and the IRA,when it comes to guns and shooting.The top-brass are intellectual thugs that control mindless masses to do their dirty work for them,like trying to assault Mr Yardley,who served his country as a British Army commissioned-officer.

G36-UK

July 30, 2007, 05:22 PM

Fosbery, Sterling:

I see your points. I admit, when it comes to pistol and rifle shooting, I'm on the outside looking in.

Given at the time of Dunblane, we all thought Hamilton was a law-abiding gun owner, I can see why everyone felt guilty. However, given SAGBNI's

I can appreciate that a NRA equivalent isn't exactly the best idea at the moment. Given, as you said, the reaction to the MP and his gun pics, the reaction would be blood in the water.

The quiet way, however, makes the gun groups look like easy targets for the GCN and their ilk to bully them into submission.

I'm not saying shout from the rooftops, but at least refuse to take any more flak for things that aren't your fault.

Let's face it, the ban needs to go for good, figuratively and literally. But for the last decade, it's been allowed to stay. How long until you draw the line and say "this far and no further"?

Okay, I admit I shouldn't be going on, as I'm pretty much an outsider on "real-steel" shooting sports. There's no firearms clubs near me, and I doubt I'd be able to attend somewhere further away regularly. But if there's a chance we could make some changes for the better, then I want to help.

Sorry if this went on a bit.

Fosbery

July 30, 2007, 06:10 PM

Preaching to the choir there :p

One point though: we did not think that Hamilton was a law abiding gun owner. He was a dangerous, suspicous individual suspected of child abuse and considered by everyone who met him to be unsuitable to own firearms - except for the police, who game him a certificate and let him keep it, despite complaints.

G36-UK

July 30, 2007, 07:23 PM

Ahh. I must have remembered the papers saying something about that. Sorry, but it was a while ago.

george29

July 30, 2007, 07:50 PM

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE (taken from pers-363497929@craigslist.org)

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. W hen you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

sterling180

July 31, 2007, 11:57 AM

Given at the time of Dunblane, we all thought Hamilton was a law-abiding gun owner, I can see why everyone felt guilty. However, given SAGBNI's

Hamilton was done for child abuse In 1973,when he started his community job as a Scouts Master.He was currently employed as a draughtsman for an engineering company.Anyway,he was driving a minibus along the Highlands when it broke down and they were all stranded in the middle of nowhere.The monster had blankets for himself but not enough for the boys and so the boys slept in the back of the minibus,without much whilst Hamilton had a blanket.When this ordeal was over he appeared at a disciplinery hearing and was accused of incompetence and neglect of care,etc,etc and was blacklisted from that organization and consequently fired.I think he was fired by his other employer,because of this and so he started his hardware and kitchen fitting business.

This happend throughout his career and over time he built up grudges against people who had wronged him and he didn't see his own warped and irresponsible behaviour at all.He did have a genuine love for shooting and started off as a responsible gun-owner and by the book,but by the late 70s he started to become irratic and careless.

This is how the GCN can use this account of Hamiltons early days,when he was a young man,to play on peoples minds and Fosbery he did own a .22 semi-auto,on the day that he killed those kids and himself-so in theory he could have taken it and its a good job that he didn't,otherwise we would of had that banned too.Still anyone who kills innocent kids,because some of them reported him,for irratic behaviour,is scum of the earth and he was an evil turd,to boot.He was on the police records as a nutter,from 1977 onwards.

Fosbery

July 31, 2007, 12:16 PM

Yeh. I wonder if he had used his illegal guns (if I remember rightly he owned a pair of Browning HPs and a pair of .357 revolvers - one of each was legal, the others not) we might not have had the ban. Probably would have still gone through but maybe with a bit moore difficulty.

G36-UK

July 31, 2007, 02:13 PM

Ah, now I see. Sorry guys, looks like I didn't have as full a picture as I thought I did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he lie to get a permit for the .357? I thought you needed to be a member of a club that allowed certain calibers.

Again, I'm kind of on the outside here. I didn't know about the 1973 thing. I'd like to learn more, is there somewhere that documents the whole thing?

matt87

July 31, 2007, 07:34 PM

I appreciate that this is OT, but I would like to join in the discussion as to the UK.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the RKBA, self defense etc. However as has already been pointed out, now is hardly the time to bring this into the public debate. Guns have become denormalised in mainstream British society, and/or associated with gangs. To my mind this is the biggest obstacle to protecting what we are already permitted to own and do, repealling some of the more extreme parts of what we cannot, and ultimately changing substantially what we can and cannot.

Being on the comittee for the Exeter University Rifle Club next year, I will be doing my damndest to do my bit. We are already considering many more freshers' sessions for freshers' week than we did last year, in an attempt to bolster numbers of people attending. I'm looking for suggestions as to how to make our presence be better known. Right now I'm toying with the idea of investigating or proposing working with local scout groups.

Sean85746

August 1, 2007, 03:57 AM

We fired our guns and the british kept a'comin'
There wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more, and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to The Gulf Of Mexico

They don't need guns in Europe....every time they get their butts in a jam, we bring our guns to save them.

evan price

August 1, 2007, 07:34 AM

Vern Humphrey

August 1, 2007, 11:13 AM

Or tell them about the time the British tried to confiscate guns at Concord, Massachusetts:

And you know the rest, in books you're read
How the British regulars fired and fled
How the farmers gave them ball for ball
From behind each fence and farmyard wall

Chasing the Redcoats down the lane
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the bend of the road
And only pausing to fire and load.

sterling180

August 1, 2007, 04:34 PM

Who cares what a Euro-weenie thinks? If he's British- he's emasculated by his own gov't anyway. If he's from the continent- it's not much better. They will never understand- which is why our ancestors LEFT EUROPE and FOUNDED THE USA in the first place.
He is the type of person,Evan,that would go and live with Somalians in Somalia,during the time of Black Hawk Down,little realising that those people don't have any value for life whatsoever(especially not for white people.) and would probably of hack him up and put his head on a pole and eat him.

His incoherant ramblings are stupid and illogical and it seems that he is probably a drugged-up college student,if Im not mistaken.He is not a product of British society,but of liberalism.You get people like him,who are wayward,in the USA too.They are called peace activists and I knew some that did volentary work,on a collective farm in Cuba.They said,"you should come too" and I said " like hell I would,Im not helping out in a despotic society,ruled by a tin-pot dictator".

Or tell them about the time the British tried to confiscate guns at Concord, Massachusetts:
yeh okay,but that was over 200 years ago,when Britain was quite a ruthless and savage superpower compared to now.The Brits confiscated your guns,because of the uprisings of the settlers,etc(They didn't even value the lives of their own citizens,who settled there.) and the fact,society and human values of those days were different.The time of torture,running the gauntlet,whippings with a cat o nine-tails,public-hangings,etc,etc.Slavery was legal then and a whole lot of other unethical and unpleasant,things too.At one time before Oliver Cromwell,a commoner,ruled Britain,after fighting the kings army,so a revolution in the UK,is possible still.

Now what Britain did in the colonies during the Empire days,is history and the fact is that the Labour party didn't exist back then,since it was the Tories and the upper-class toffs that ruled Great Britain.The Labour movement rules us now and they are far less leniant than the party that supported colonialism and unfairness,during Empire.This gun confiscation was done by ordinary people pressurising the government to take action against small-arms and most were Labour supporters and not Tory supporters.Tories support gun rights and Labour grabs them,with the do-gooders.

wjustinen

August 1, 2007, 04:54 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the RKBA, self defense etc. However as has already been pointed out, now is hardly the time to bring this into the public debate.

You are correct. "Now" is possibly entirely too late to bring self defense into the public debate. It should have been done at the very first effort to restrict firearms.

Consider, however, that if you don't get off the stick and bring self defense into the debate and keep it there the chances that you will be able to keep what you have are probably nil.

There is no logical response when your government says "things that are too dangerous to have and use for self defense are entirely too dangerous to use for sport." That is why the anti-gun forces have been so successful.

The common law right to keep and bear arms was no more about sport than is the 2A. When that is not understood, the right is forfeit.

sterling180

August 1, 2007, 04:55 PM

Right now I'm toying with the idea of investigating or proposing working with local scout groups.
Go for it,because those kids that are in the scouts,might be the future shooters of the UK.I've heard that it's good fun to work in scout's groups.

iapetus

August 1, 2007, 05:02 PM

Regarding Dunblane/Hamilton:

I've read the official inquiry (well, the one that was made public).

It listed a whole load of things that might have been signs that Hamilton shouldn't have been allowed to own guns.

These "might be" signs were a bizarre mixture of things that to my mind were either completely harmless and normal (he liked watching films with gunfights in them), to things that were not merely a sign that he might be unsuitable, but things that if true should have been grounds for arrest and jailing (threatening people, pointing guns at them as a threat/joke, general gross violations of the Four Rules etc).

That said, basing opposition to the ban of "the police screwed up, so its not fair to punish us instead of them", as tended to be the case in the UK both at the time and subsequently, is a weak argument in my view, as I'm sure most people here would agree.

Fosbery

August 1, 2007, 05:09 PM

Yeh definitely try with the Scout groups. The Scouts hold a shooting competition at Bisley every year (300 yard fullbore target rifle I think) and they do air rifles on their own. See if your club can get permission for them to come shoot there. If not, see if you can use some private land or just take them clay shooting. Try having parents come along too, they can see how responsible and safe their kids are and could have a go themselves. The more people who come into contact with responsible gun ownership the better. Also, try the girl guides! Might want to get the local press 'round - they're usually not too harsh on people so you'd be unlikely to 'get done' so to speak and it would raise awareness. Make sure you put up some posters for the pistols campaign to spark debate too.

Tommygunn

August 1, 2007, 06:02 PM

That said, basing opposition to the ban of "the police screwed up, so its not fair to punish us instead of them", as tended to be the case in the UK both at the time and subsequently, is a weak argument in my view, as I'm sure most people here would agree.

Opposition to the ban should be based on the idea it isn't wise to "punish" the people for the act of one ... "nutter." Whether or not the police should be "punished" would depend upon them doing something (or failing to do something) truly culpable. If the police "should have" known the Dunblane killer shouldn't poseess firearms and did nothing about it, possibly some type of inquiry or punishment would be appropriate, but that should be independant from gun laws.
It never ceases to amaze me that governments will crack down on firearms rights after some particular heinous act ... only to see crime rates then increase ... and then use that as an argument for even more restrictive
laws.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay, "Self-Reliance."

revjen45

August 1, 2007, 08:17 PM

Why does it matter what a Euroid thinks? They don't vote in the USA and what they think is of no consequence.

ArfinGreebly

August 2, 2007, 01:10 AM

Why does it matter what a Euroid thinks? They don't vote in the USA and what they think is of no consequence.

While that sounds sensible at first blush, the "EU mind" is more pertinent than you may think.

Know Thine Enemy

The people in this country who push socialism and want us all disarmed use the EU thinking model, cite the laws and customs of EU (bar Switzerland), and demand that we use their template for law and society here in the USA.

It is well to understand the workings of the "EU mind" as the socialists here want to mimic the socialists there.

Sadly, it's not enough that we have our facts straight, that we have our logic honed, that we have our legal foundations defined. The socialists don't care.

The socialists want to change the rules, by hook or by crook, to suit the templates of the European model.

They will argue in shrill voices for their cause, they will intimidate whomever they can, they will lie and misrepresent, they will ignore facts and logic, they will conspire and plot, and in the end they will wail if they lose and gloat if they win. And among their number there are many who are nothing if not patient.

The actual law means nothing to them, except as it supports their ends.

So do indeed pay attention to the minds and thoughts of the peoples of Europe.

You need to know what you're fighting.

Odd Job

August 2, 2007, 03:10 AM

Yep.
That individual wouldn't know any more about guns than he knows about fornicating (which is probably very little).
I've seen refrigerator magnets with better mental agility.
Unfortunately for us in the UK that type of individual is not so uncommon.

17poundr

August 2, 2007, 10:48 PM

Sigh... I thought this was about how to explain the second ammendment to an European who doesnt get it, or is opposed to it without knowing all the facts... Not showing that US gun enthusiasts, hate Europe, and any other group but US gun nunts... Because it shure has started to sound like that...

Europe is like taking a trip from Canada to south Chile... You will find all kinds of variants and official lines to guns, violence and attitudes...

I mean, fifteen years ago, one needed to crosss the border to stPetersburg, and stop somebody who wanted to change dollars (no shortage of those guys back then), and ask for guns, and you got Makarovs, or even AK's. That's if you had the cohones, as rip offs were made by gun point!

Well, All I can say is that if you live in a small community in Finland and dont have lot's of crime behind you, in your life. You will have all the guns you want, even pretty cool ones like some of the latest Walther 45apc carbines, in single shot semi auto for example, and if you are into the volunteer extra veteran training, you might even get an AK-47 licence...

But, in helsinki, it's more tricky, just like the states, I belive that say, Omaha is a bit different to new york in it's gun laws, huh?

So, if you wish to rant on about how effing great the americans are and (without the obvious knowledge on military history), think that the US bailed out the Europeans, who after all were responcible of about 80-90% of the German army's losses in ww2, and about 50-70% of the Luftwaffe losses, and pretty much totalled the surface fleet single handedly by british ships... (Thanks for the B-24s for getting the atlantic gap closed btw, that was a really cudos for the US thing)...

Why not take pride in the already great acchievement of fighting the Japanese to a standstill, and then whupping them back to the islands, although the British 14 army did fight the largest japanese land army in Burma, until the Russians engaged a huge japanese army in the last week of ww2, in manchukuo... But the japanese troops there were of second grade, the top of the lot, were mostly lost, cut off, or in japan waiting for the big showdown...

The US did great in ww2, but the desicive war turning battles of El-Alamein and Staligrad both took place before the US could make it's appearance... Sorry but thats the truth.

Hey, the japs were a fanatically tough nut to crack, and in Europe, there were a fiew US divisions who suffered ww1 style casualty rates, meaning that they were in theory made up of replacements twice over before the war ended, ofcourse a core of old soldiers kept on surviving while the replacements were killed more often, so not all of the original guys died, even if the casualty rate was 204% as it was for the US 4th inf div in the ETO... (like some of the British divs and most of the Russian divs too)...

And just the spam that the us sent to russian and british troops, helped a lot! While the German and Finnish soldiers were eating porridge for days, in the meaner times...

I personally will try for a gun permit for the third time, last time (they always slap another year if you fail your licence test). Last time I got them the unheard of recommendations from two other gun owners, and their gun licences on the line if I would have fumbled up, and they came up with something else... It was like there was as withch hunt going on...

But I was told that that's how it works, the cops who are in charge of licences, are put there because they cannot cut it as regurlar cops, basket cases in other words...

But mostly in the countryside, it's much more relaxed... In the city, just dont get any fines behind you, even though a minor fine is supposed to go away from all records once payed, the cops and army keep a secret tally of them, they banned the first finnish woman from becoming the first finnish female leftenant, halfway through the four year cadet school, when they found out she had three speeding tickets, in her past!!! Yepp... It's true...

But, I want to hear more of anybody without a record, or drug busts can own a gun in Britain!!!

I'm half british, and dual national, and hey, I'll got to Britain if I can own a gun there! I just cannot wait to get into practical shooting, and hopefully get into the business....

I even have ideas for a new round, and a carbine... can foreigners get patented with an idea in the states, if they get a green card??? I really am interested... And that national rifle program that you have going (to improve accuracy in the us population), thats great! I would love to buy a M1 garand from Springfield, and start a shooting in long range stuff... that's another thing that I really want to get into... And also I would set up a 'new' sport that invoves, cross country running, map reading, long range shooting, moving undetected, and extra long range shots...

BTW, does anybody know how the Armalite AR-30 in Lapua338, or win 300 magnum, work??? Can it shoot true to 1400meters? (The best lapua338s can)...

Anyway, there are dumbo's in every country... agreed? And good people in every country too..

So, please if you want an EU bashing thread, name it as such... After all, American culture came from Europe... I mean we are family. :)

matt87

August 3, 2007, 02:55 AM

The short answer is that you can get a firearms certificate in Britain if you have a clean record, and even a not-so-clean one. Will PM you to avoid this ging further OT.

hopkin

August 3, 2007, 07:21 AM

G36-UK
"Again, I'm kind of on the outside here. I didn't know about the 1973 thing. I'd like to learn more, is there somewhere that documents the whole thing?"

There's a bloke affiliated to SAGBNI who's doing a book about this I think. There might be more on the SAGBNI forums here:
http://www.sagbni.co.uk/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=17

MP5

August 3, 2007, 08:11 AM

Funny how many posts in this thread say "Don't bother, they're ignorant and will never get it." That's the same thing many anti's say about us. If you don't bother to politely put forward your facts and arguments and instead just rest on "They're dumb Euro socialists, we're right, that's that", what comes of it? It's lazy and false to assume that people opposed to your way of thinking can/will never come around.

30 cal slob

August 3, 2007, 08:24 AM

He is the type of person,Evan,that would go and live with Somalians in Somalia,during the time of Black Hawk Down,little realising that those people don't have any value for life whatsoever(especially not for white people.) and would probably of hack him up and put his head on a pole and eat him.

His incoherant ramblings are stupid and illogical and it seems that he is probably a drugged-up college student,if Im not mistaken.He is not a product of British society,but of liberalism.You get people like him,who are wayward,in the USA too.They are called peace activists and I knew some that did volentary work,on a collective farm in Cuba.They said,"you should come too" and I said " like hell I would,Im not helping out in a despotic society,ruled by a tin-pot dictator".

LOL.

JWarren

August 3, 2007, 09:19 AM

So, if you wish to rant on about how effing great the americans are and (without the obvious knowledge on military history), think that the US bailed out the Europeans, who after all were responcible of about 80-90% of the German army's losses in ww2, and about 50-70% of the Luftwaffe losses, and pretty much totalled the surface fleet single handedly by british ships... (Thanks for the B-24s for getting the atlantic gap closed btw, that was a really cudos for the US thing)...

17poundr,

I am going to respond as respectfully as I can.

Before I get to the crux of my opinion, I'll link to a pretty good discussion of this on:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-35880.aspx

Interesting insights and arguements. They do not discount the logistic and material support the US gave to the allies prior to our setting boots on the ground.

Now...

US contribution to WW2 in Europe is more than a statistical arguement. It is a human arguement.

It is entirely possible that the nations of Europe could have eventually defeated Hitler without US aid or involvement. It is equally true that it is possible that the USSR could have eventually beat Hitler without the aid of anyone else. But the job would have been a lot harder without our aid in both cases.

What I am going to say now is not politically correct, but it is an arguement that is worth mention by the fact that it WAS a consideration when the US was debating becoming involved in WW2.

Why get involved in Europe's war at all? Germany was tearing through Europe, not the Midwest. Many did not consider Europe's war to be ours. Frankly, the most direct provacation of the US came from Japan in the form of Pearl Harbor, not Germany. As we later know, Hitler even contemplated attempting to make an ally of the US before he gained an understanding of US values and leadership.

The arguement of whether the US should have entered WW2 in Europe was one that was heavily debated in D.C. This arguement WAS made.

Now, I said that the US contribution was a human one more than it was a statistical one. I base that on the above argument.

The fact that ANY US citizens died liberating the countries of Europe is a tremendous contribution to a war that was percieved by many as not our problem. The blood spilled there was for Europe and for the US ideology of fighting for what was right. However, none should be able to doubt who benefited more from US involvement. Let's see--- the US gets to feel good about fighting for the right thing. France gets their country back. No question in my mind who benefits more.

My grandfather was pulled from his life at the age of 30 years old in order to land on D-Day. He was shot landing on the beach, but was a glancing shot. Three months later, he took shrapnel from a morter round through his right ankle. It took 4 months in a hospital to recover and he walked with a limp and painful nerve damage until he died 3 years ago.

Yet, to his dying day, he considered his fight against Hitler the most important battle against pure evil he ever waged. I respect his ideology and his sacrifices for that ideology.

He was one of millions that share both that ideology and those sacrifices.

Yeah... the US soldier that bled and died on European soil are/were that "effing" great.

-- John

sterling180

August 3, 2007, 12:20 PM

Revealed: the fatal failures behind Dunblane children's massacre
MICHAEL HOWIE

Key points
• Cullen Inquiry reveals deadly lapses that may have allowed killings to occur
• Warnings over Thomas Hamilton were given but not acted on
• Inquiry findings were to be kept secret for 100 years but are now revealed

Key quote
"If the kind of circumstances as described are allowed to continue without some kind of intervention, I consider that other children may be placed at risk. In like situations arising unchecked I fear that a tragedy to a child or children is almost waiting to happen." - Letter from the Children's Reporter to Fife Regional Council and Fife Constabulary

Story in full

THOMAS Hamilton showed a handgun and bullets to children only days before he massacred 16 pupils and a teacher in Dunblane, documents released yesterday reveal.

But social workers failed to speak to the children to check their story until the day of the shootings.

The lapse is one of a series of failings committed by police and other public bodies in the weeks, months and years before the killings that are described in official documents released to the public for the first time.

The information - contained in more than 3,000 pages of witness statements, letters and reports - includes details of how a police officer specialising in child protection wanted a warrant to search for hundreds of pictures of boys taken by Hamilton at summer camps he ran.

Although a long list of charges were drafted by police, no action was taken by prosecutors.

The previous year, a Children's Reporter warned education chiefs and police that a tragedy to children was "almost waiting to happen" after three boys ran away from a summer camp in Dunblane run by Hamilton.

The documents also detail how a senior police officer refused to revoke Hamilton's firearms licence, believing he posed no danger to society.

The papers, prepared for the Cullen Inquiry into the massacre, were originally placed under a 100-year closure order. But Scotland's senior law officer, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, reviewed that decision and they were made available yesterday at the National Archives of Scotland in Edinburgh.

One of the documents is a letter from Strathclyde Police written to the Chief Constable of Central Scotland a week after the shootings. It details how, in the summer of 1995, Hamilton was given permission by the local council to run a boys' football club at Thomas Muir High School, in Bishopbriggs.

On 1 March, 1996 a parent of a boy attending the club contacted the school claiming Hamilton had shown him a gun.

The parent also alleged that Hamilton had offered the boy an 18-certificate video, and told him to keep what he had shown him "secret".

The headteacher contacted Strathclyde Regional Council education department and was told to inform a senior social worker.

On Wednesday, 6 March, a senior social worker, whose identity has been withheld, received a letter detailing the allegations, and referred it to a colleague who was off sick at the time.

According to the document, the senior social worker contacted a principal child care officer in Stirling who said they "had knowledge" of Hamilton and had "received similar complaints in their area". But they added that "nothing had been substantiated".

On Monday, 11 March - two days before the tragedy - the social worker returned from sickness and read the letter on the allegations, "but did not appear to digest the contents in full".

The same day, the headteacher phoned the senior social worker to "express her dissatisfaction and concern" that the matter "did not appear to have been at that stage progressed in any form or fashion".

It was only hours after the massacre that any kind of detailed investigation was begun. Social workers visited the home of the child and another who also attended the club. Both said they had been shown a gun and "approximately ten bullets" in the back of Hamilton's van, which was parked at the school.

The letter continued: "In addition, [child witness one] alleged that on a previous occasion the subject [Hamilton] had shown him a hunting magazine displaying pictures of persons shooting deer, pictures of firearms and ammunition".

The senior social worker was later interviewed by police.

"She frankly admitted that she did not treat the referral as a matter of urgency until the day of the Dunblane incident because she was covering the Strathkelvin area in her capacity as senior social worker and the social worker, [name blanked out], who had been given the referral was off sick until Monday, 11 March 1996," the report for Lord Cullen stated.

The documents lay bare the deep suspicions police held for years about Hamilton's behaviour towards children.

In June 1993 detectives investigated complaints from parents about his youth camps.

They said their children had been forced to wear only "ill-fitting trunks" and were made to carry out strenuous gymnastic exercises while being photographed by Hamilton.

On 9 June, 1993, an unnamed detective constable in the child protection unit at Bannockburn wrote to a senior colleague outlining his concerns. He wrote: "Mr Hamilton has undoubtedly sailed very close to the wind for many years as regards the inappropriateness of his methods of alleged tuition of very young, immature and unsuspecting boys of primary school age.

"However... in view of the evidence available to date Hamilton may have committed offences of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour..."

The officer said he also believed Hamilton may have embezzled, as he had boasted of spending £10,000 on camera equipment but was registered as unemployed.

Police drew up a list of ten charges they felt could be brought against Hamilton, but the procurator-fiscal in Stirling decided there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal acts.

Previous probes had been conducted on Hamilton following similar complaints about camps in 1988, 1991 and 1992, but on all occasions prosecutors marked "no proceedings".

Grave concerns were raised the previous year in a letter from the Children's Reporter to Fife Regional Council and Fife Constabulary. The letter was written after three boys, two aged nine and one ten, had run away from a summer camp run by Hamilton at Dunblane High School.

The boys were found sitting late one night on a pavement in Dunblane in their pyjamas. According to police, they were "fed up with the routine of cold showers, terrible food and the general atmosphere".

The reporter wrote: "I feel that the events of 29.6.92 in Dunblane in a sense serve as a warning.

"If the kind of circumstances as described are allowed to continue without some kind of intervention, I consider that other children may be placed at risk.

"In like situations arising unchecked I fear that a tragedy to a child or children is almost waiting to happen."

The files also include evidence from the former deputy chief constable of Central Scotland, Douglas McMurdo, who explained why he did not revoke Hamilton's handgun certificates. This was despite being alerted to an incident in 1989 when Hamilton took a gun to a family's home and showed them how to fire it.

An internal memo from Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes also requested the licence be withdrawn following complaints about the camps.

But Mr McMurdo concluded he "never ever considered Mr Hamilton to be a violent or dangerous person, nor did he do anything which would have given me evidence to revoke his firearms certificate".

He said five firearms incidents involving Hamilton had not been reported to police until after the massacre.

Mr McMurdo said the incident which most concerned him was an allegation that, in January 1996, he pointed an unloaded handgun to a man in his home and pulled the trigger.

"Were there evidence that this allegation was true I would have gone for revocation," he said.

Mr McMurdo resigned in 1996 after his force was harshly criticised following Cullen.

The documents also reveal how a photographic shop owner alerted police after discovering Hamilton was taking hundreds of pictures of scantily-clad boys during gym classes. "At no time did I ever see anything in any of these films other than young boys," he told the inquiry.

A police officer viewed the images but decided there was no criminal content.

Annabel Goldie MSP, the Tory justice spokeswoman, said she hoped lessons could yet be learned from the papers. She said: "Clearly, the disclosure of these papers may help to inform current processes and procedures for assessing individuals.

"This is very topical as the Scottish Parliament is currently considering the Management of Offenders Bill. It has to be hoped that if there are lessons to be learned from what we now know about the circumstances preceding the Dunblane tragedy, these will be picked up as a matter of urgency."

Neither East Dunbartonshire Council, which now has Bishopbriggs in its area, or Glasgow City Council, was able to comment as they did not know where Strathclyde Regional Council archive files were stored.

A spokeswoman for Central Scotland Police said: "The Cullen Inquiry considered fully the issues arising from the Dunblane tragedy and as such Central Scotland Police has no further comment to make. Our sympathies are with the families affected by this tragedy."

Hamilton branded mentally unstable in 1974, report reveals

THOMAS Hamilton was described as mentally unbalanced by a Scouting official as long ago as 1974.

A police report on his involvement with the Scouts told how he was initially regarded as a "polite and intelligent individual" by a local Scout official, but he was dismissed within a year because he was suspected of "improper behaviour with boys".

In 1973, Hamilton became an active member of the 1st Stirlingshire Venture Scouts. In July that year, he became assistant Scout leader and then

was promoted to Scout leader.

But in February 1974, the official received complaints from parents after Hamilton took nine boys from Bannockburn Scouts to Aviemore.

They were supposed to have stayed in a hostel but instead slept overnight in a van in poor weather conditions and the boys were "cold, hungry and frightened". The Scout official warned Hamilton, but two weeks later the same thing happened.

Hamilton claimed the hostel had been overbooked, but the official discovered this was not true and decided to dismiss him.

A letter sent to the Scout Association's warrant department by one of the movement's most senior officials said Hamilton had been suspected of "improper behaviour with boys". The letter quoted a third Scouting official, who was also a consultant surgeon, as saying he considered Hamilton to be "mentally imbalanced".

Hamilton's disturbing behaviour continued when he went on to run his own clubs and summer camps for boys. Over the years, parents made a catalogue of complaints to council officials and police about the way he ran his camps.

He once gave a mother a 15-minute video of his camps, which showed children "exhausted" after gymnastic exercises. She said the children were wearing football shorts, adding: "The camera appeared to pan along the line of children and concentrate on their waists and below."

Boys were also shown wearing only black swimming trunks, hanging from gymnastic hoops. She said she felt this was "way beyond the physical capabilities of children of that age and some appeared close to tears".

A nine-year-old boy who went to a club based at Bannockburn High School told how Hamilton "used to make us wear swimming trunks he brought in for us" while doing gymnastics.

The boy added: "I can remember once when I was in the minibus, Mr Hamilton asked us to guess what kind of club he was a member of.

"We couldn't guess and eventually he told us he was in a gun club. I asked him what he shot and he told me he liked to shoot moving things.

"He told us he had lot of guns but not to tell anybody."

Killer 'was living on credit cards'

THOMAS Hamilton was facing financial meltdown in March 1996.

The former shop owner and failed freelance photographer was living on income support and housing benefit totalling £75 a week and owed more than £8,800.

He had bank overdrafts totalling more than £6,400 and credit card debts of £2,200, according to a report on his finances prepared for the police. It read: "His only means of income was £44 income support, £31 weekly housing benefit and any profits he made from running his boys' clubs at Bannockburn, Dunblane and Bishopbriggs.

"His financial predicament was further worsened by the existence of sheriff's warrants in connection with his council tax debt of £228."

Hamilton had been claiming unemployment benefit, but was reported for working as a photographer while doing so. He denied this when the allegation was investigated, but the benefit was stopped.

Hamilton later sold his camera equipment.

He had four bank accounts and three were substantially overdrawn.

One account, at the Clydesdale Bank, had £577 in it during December 1995, but this was reduced to three pence in four withdrawals, the last on 11 March, 1996, just two days before the shooting.

The report said: "Hamilton was undoubtedly in severe financial difficulties. His total assets ... appear to be three pence whilst he was overdrawn by around £6,472."

It concluded: "The limited movement with the other bank accounts and heavy use of the Barclaycard and Debenhams card is a good indication that Hamilton relied on credit cards for everyday living."

Web links

Lord Cullen's 1996 Public Inquiry report
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dunblane.htm
Daily transcripts of Cullen Inquiry
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/justice/dunblane/dunblane-00.asp
Related topic

According to this article,the events that I described in 1973 occurred in 1974,but I had definately seen a document,that said 1973.Hmmm,it is like some saying Hungerford happend in 1986 and 1988m,instead of 1987.Anyway,read on at your disguist at that creep.It seems that I was right in saying that Hamilton started his career off as a Scouts staff member,in 1973 and thats right,they were on a trip to the hostel,with him driving the mini-bus.

17poundr

August 4, 2007, 05:54 PM

To JWwarren. Please do not misundestand me. I truly am greatful for the boys who came to Europe on Churchill's call for help, and gave their lives, and or health, to help crush the hell of Nazism...

I never, ever, meant to imply that their sacrifice was any less worthy than say, the Brits...

After all, the Brits too had many people who thought 'it's a matter for the continentals, why should we send our boys to die there'? Especially in ww1, but in ww2 also, a fact that Hitler tried to play on when precenting his peace deal after Dunkirk, but good old Churchill was rushed in to quash the mp's who were actually thinking of peace...

My point was that when I hear that all Europeans should be thankful to the US for their freedom, I feel compelled to try to point out that we were all in the same boat, and certainly nobody needs but congratulate each other in a good job done in ridding the world of Hitler and his hellish visions...

I certainly am thankful for every US man, woman, gun, and can of food that reached Europe, or Asia in ww2 in aid to crush the true axis of evil, something so horrible, that it's hard to understand...

And once the desicion to go forth into Iraq was done, I supported it, even though it was against to what most people arround me belived. But I said, once the word go is given, then the best thing to do, is to act in unison, not to try and crack the effort, as the Islamist neo-Jihhadists are looking just for something like that to exploit, and they did succeed in Spain...

So, I appoligize if you felt that I wasnt appreciating the sacrifices that the US made in ww2. I do. I must admit that the books of Stephen Ambrose opened my eyes, although after that I have read much much more, and nowadays, when playing strategy games, kind of find it distaceful playing the axis, even though it's just a game...

And this from a guy, who loved the Wermacht-SS armies kit when building plastic kit models, at the age of 12!!!

I think that the Anglo-Americans were the best army in ww2, for many reasons, and they developed a weapon, that made them potential dictators of the world, the atom bomb.

It is very worrying that it's proliferating, now.... Militarily I see it as a more dangerous developement than the tterrorists, and suicide bombs...

Anyway, I think that the USA has the most energy in the sence of getting things done. and although I preferr Democrat foreign policy over republikan. I still hope one day to be a part of the great liberty of having a gun range of my own, somethign that your precious 2nd ammendment guarantees you!

Hold on to it! It's precious...

I thank your family for the sacrifice they gave against the war of the forces of darkenss in Europe.

Respectfully yours.

Mr poundr.

Here are some pictures to remember those days by...

JWarren

August 4, 2007, 08:25 PM

Mr poundr,

I appreciate your response on this thread as well as your PM to get over here and read it.

Thanks for the clarification, and I am I can see clearly your views on all that stood against the likes of Hitler (from all parts globally).

I apologize if I came across rather passionately. The guys that fought in that war never really left it completely, and it has always broken my heart to see a veteran break down in tears over friends lost on 60 year old battlefields.

Again, thank you for your explaination, and for sharing the appreciation for all those who sacrificed in that War.

-- John

Tom Fury

August 6, 2007, 05:41 PM

What do you mean you don't have them in the UK because people don't want them? They don't want them because they can't have them. Of course they want them, for the same reasons Americans do. Happiness is a warm gun. You've been told you don't need them, but I don't think the man on the street really believes it.

I don't think you've evolved at all from the "savage" Imperialists you were; I believe the only thing most Brits regret about the empire is that its' gone. Gun control is about control; Thats' why you can't have them.

C'mon now; tell us what sort of firearms you're allowed to own and under what circumstances you're allowed to keep them.

Hmmm? British understatement reigns.

Its' a little like calling a VW Beetle a "Wolfsburg Porsche."

I think you will not get the ban repealed because your Govt doesn't trust you with firearms.

I'm afraid they might be right; They're basically saying you're not civilized enough to properly be trusted with that privilege.

Do you agree with that?

How long will you put up with it is a very critical question.

I can't accept the logic that what happens in the EU will eventually happen in the US. The hell it will.

First thing that has to go is the big dangerous idea that this is all fated to be and the ground once lost can't be taken back.

Have we forgotten how to ask "why?"

And to respond: "That isn't good enough."

There will never be a better time; if there is, you don't want it to be upon you before you're ready for it, considering what things would have to be like for it to be that way (Mad Max indeed...).

Cheers, TF back from holiday.

Mokothar

August 6, 2007, 06:10 PM

I'm a European (Belgian)

What really opene my eyes was Olek Volgs site; www.a-human-right.com

I'm still reading bits and pieces from both sides of the debate, and I've concluded for myself that if you want to fight gun crime, you have to focus on the crime part, not the guns.

Fosbery

August 6, 2007, 07:39 PM

Good to hear it Mokothar, welcome to The Highroad :)

PILMAN

August 20, 2007, 02:50 PM

I posted up another response, this time regarding hoplophobia and the fear of weapons. Here is a response I got. Any suggestions to this?

by Kevin Ronayne on Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:53 pm

A stapler, a carving knife, a power drill and an X-ray machine are all "inanimate objects" as well. They all have ostensibly peaceful and constructive purposes, but we are all quite careful about how we use them. We are also wary of them, in proportion to our familiarity (or lack of) with them, how much control we have over them, and how much damage they can cause in the event of carelessness or improper use.

Kevin Ronayne wrote:
Leaving aside the question of phobias in humans and other animals (a fascinating subject in it's own right), I dispute that you should not fear an inanimate object. A weapon is usually much more than just an "inanimate object". A pebble is an inanimate object, but so is a one-tonne boulder perched on a cliff above you. Are man-made objects such as an automatic rifle, a 60-ton tank, or a nuclear warhead all just "inanimate objects"?

And his replys to me

by Kevin Ronayne on Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:22 pm

Zionist wrote:
Kevin Ronayne wrote:
Leaving aside the question of phobias in humans and other animals (a fascinating subject in it's own right), I dispute that you should not fear an inanimate object. A weapon is usually much more than just an "inanimate object". A pebble is an inanimate object, but so is a one-tonne boulder perched on a cliff above you. Are man-made objects such as an automatic rifle, a 60-ton tank, or a nuclear warhead all just "inanimate objects"?
Perhaps if it were used in a threatening matter. If a person were to pick up a rock and point it towards me as if they were going to throw it, why do I feel threatened or fear? Generally the same reason as if you were crossing traffic and saw cars coming at you at full speed. The issue with weapons is that the media and the political groups associated against them generally project the object as having a mind of it's own.

I am not aware of any such general tendencies to vilify weapons or weapons system themselves. Most people understand that what matters is the combination of the weapon itself and the willingness to use it in a certain way and/or for certain ends. The unreliability or instability of the person or organisation controlling the weapons would also result in a very natural fear of the combination of weapon and operator, as would any known reliability or control issues in the weapons system.

Zionist wrote:
Perhaps I am different but I view weapons as a form of art, something interesting about how they were designed. To me, it's the same way I view an animals defense. I've always been interested in how bears attack or defend themselves. In the same way, it's similar with humans.

To an extent, I share your fascination with the design of weapons, the history of their design, and all that this entails. At one level though, they are still just objects designed to do a job. A Vulcan bomber may look beautiful, but it was not designed to look beautiful to the human eye - any aesthetic value it possesses would be just purely coincidental. Washing machines are not very pretty to look at, but they do the job they were designed to do.

Zionist wrote:
We have our tools (thanks to technology) to protect ourselves.

Almost all of our weapons today are designed for use against other humans with weapons. Unlike other animals and plants, we can make concious decisions about whether or not we really want or need certain weapons or levels of weapons usage.

Zionist wrote:
The subject appears to be very controversial though. Politically speaking, it's a constant debate of civilized vs uncivilized. I really don't see anything uncivilized about weapons, perhaps using them to kill out of aggression absolutely. The weapon it's self should not be feared though, you don't fear a shark or a lion at the zoo do you? I wouldn't unless it were coming after me in a threatening matter.
The weapon most certainly matters when one considers what a given weapon is designed to do, and how it can be employed. A hand pistol is a trivial weapon in comparison to others, but it is easy to produce, distribute, conceal and operate.

God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within
organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

_________________________________________________________________________________

This was posted on a humanist atheist forum. It's not easy to convince them.

subierex

August 20, 2007, 06:08 PM

I work with several European expats (Britain, Belgium, Spain). All but the Spaniard are anti gun, the Brit being highly anti. Funny that the Spaniard, one old enough to have lived under Franco, is the only gun owner among them, and very pro 2A.

I've discussed guns/gun rights with others from Europe, both expats and those currently living there. Other than the obvious cultural differences, my feeling is that with recent centuries of recurring wars in Europe, and having to live through it, their culture just doesn't have the stomach for violence. To them, the gun symbolizes violence regardless of the fact that it is an inanimate object used by both good and evil alike.

What bothers me the most is that many of these people's parents and grandparents lived under Nazi rule and all the horrors that entailed. With that memory so near and dear, they gladly hand over their rights to keep arms in order to at least possibly defend themselves. Makes no sense to me. But then, we Americans ARE quite different that our European brethren. We always have been though, haven't we.:cool:

Dan M.

August 20, 2007, 07:53 PM

Pilman wrote:

That's because they believe no one else should be armed except themselves. Look at Feinstein, she has a CCW permit yet it's nearly impossible for anyone else to get a concealment permit in California. I talk to Jewish friends who live there and end up carrying concealed illegally (not saying it's right) because it's nearly impossible. Not sure what the deal is with the politicians.

There are more than 40,000 Californians who would disagree with you, Pilman.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2006.pdf

http://www.calccw.com/

PILMAN

August 20, 2007, 09:50 PM

Interesting Dan, I guess ya learn something new every day. I didn't know that.

Dr. Peter Venkman

August 21, 2007, 01:58 AM

The only way to win an 'anti' over is to use cold, hard facts. Show the statistics of rising violence in areas that have banned guns both abroad (England, Australia) and here in the United States. Until then it is pointless arguing against pure ignorance.

This is a reply to a older posts, but oh well:

It is entirely possible that the nations of Europe could have eventually defeated Hitler without US aid or involvement. It is equally true that it is possible that the USSR could have eventually beat Hitler without the aid of anyone else. But the job would have been a lot harder without our aid in both cases.

This is very debatable. It's possible without U.S. military involvement, but both allies would have literally choked due to a lack of resources. Have you forgotten the Lend-Lease act?

So, if you wish to rant on about how effing great the americans are and (without the obvious knowledge on military history), think that the US bailed out the Europeans, who after all were responcible of about 80-90% of the German army's losses in ww2, and about 50-70% of the Luftwaffe losses, and pretty much totalled the surface fleet single handedly by british ships... (Thanks for the B-24s for getting the atlantic gap closed btw, that was a really cudos for the US thing)...

Europeans were not responsible for the majority of Heer losses. That credit goes solely to the Soviet Union entirely on the Eastern Front. 8/10 men in the German Heer died on the Eastern Front. Great Britain's accomplishments, however difficult, absolutely pale in comparison to that of the Soviet Union. Taking over North Afrika is much easier to do when your opponent has no supply line, no equipment, and a makeshift fighting force. British actions in Europe after D-Day have been described lack luster by many commanding officers and many historians. I am not trying to discredit European involvement in the conflict, but the United States was involved in the taking of what I'd call the 'harder ground' after North Afrika with the British defeating Rommel.

The invasion of Italy and Europe were centered around American involvement and American drive. There is no way that G.B. could have accomplished such things by itself but the U.S.A. could have if they had a land area capable of giving them a jump off point such as England did.

The Kreigsmarine was a joke almost from start to finish with a lack of funding and development of capable ships. The Royal Navy did it's fair share but Hitler turning his eyes to the East played a bigger one. Operation Sea Lion was not even discussed between members of the OKH and the lackluster Battle of Britain was the end result.

The US did great in ww2, but the desicive war turning battles of El-Alamein and Staligrad both took place before the US could make it's appearance... Sorry but thats the truth.

G.B. could not have had an 'El-Alamein' with the supplies given to them by the United States through the Lend-Lease act. I'd also like to remind you that the Americans landed in Africa, alongside the British, shortly after El Alamein was completed, in Operation Torch. Stalingrad was the result of bad military policy through Hitler, not Russian ingenuity or strategy.

Fosbery

August 21, 2007, 10:06 AM

Fosbery

August 21, 2007, 10:10 AM

sterling180

August 21, 2007, 11:32 AM

This is very debatable. It's possible without U.S. military involvement, but both allies would have literally choked due to a lack of resources. Have you forgotten the Lend-Lease act?
The weapons here went to the MILITARY,including the HOME GUARD.Most citizens,particulary the war wives and widows,wouldn't have wanted a gun anyway.Lend-lease,was weapons to arm the soilders and home guard soilders and the resistance movements and not ordinary citizens.

why is it that we bring lend/lease into it?

anygunanywhere

August 21, 2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:
Pilman wrote:

That's because they believe no one else should be armed except themselves. Look at Feinstein, she has a CCW permit yet it's nearly impossible for anyone else to get a concealment permit in California. I talk to Jewish friends who live there and end up carrying concealed illegally (not saying it's right) because it's nearly impossible. Not sure what the deal is with the politicians.

There are more than 40,000 Californians who would disagree with you, Pilman.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/...uances2006.pdf

http://www.calccw.com/

Is a total of 40,000 CCW out of 36,457,549 (2006 estimate) supposed to indicate that anyone other than the elites, especially in LA county can obtain a California CCW?

I do know that in the more rural counties CCW permits are more accessible for us commoner trash.

I lived in Contra Costa County for 8.5 years, inquired as to the possibility of obtaining a CCW, and was flat out told that I did not need one, could want in one hand and spit in the other, and was not a member of the appropriate political party and did not contribute to the appropriate party's campaigns.

Anygunanywhere but not when I lived in California.

Vern Humphrey

August 21, 2007, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by JWarren
It is entirely possible that the nations of Europe could have eventually defeated Hitler without US aid or involvement. It is equally true that it is possible that the USSR could have eventually beat Hitler without the aid of anyone else. But the job would have been a lot harder without our aid in both cases.
This is very debatable. It's possible without U.S. military involvement, but both allies would have literally choked due to a lack of resources. Have you forgotten the Lend-Lease act?

I have pointed out in a different forum, the United States has saved France three times.

We saved them in WWI by turning back the big German offensive which they launched with the resources no longer needed on the Eastern Front after Russia capitulated (and a near thing it was, too.)

We saved them in WWII by liberating them from the Germans.

And we saved them again in WWII by making sure they weren't "liberated" by the Russians.

Dan M.

August 21, 2007, 01:12 PM

anygunanywhere wrote:

Is a total of 40,000 CCW out of 36,457,549 (2006 estimate) supposed to indicate that anyone other than the elites, especially in LA county can obtain a California CCW?

I do know that in the more rural counties CCW permits are more accessible for us commoner trash.

I lived in Contra Costa County for 8.5 years, inquired as to the possibility of obtaining a CCW, and was flat out told that I did not need one, could want in one hand and spit in the other, and was not a member of the appropriate political party and did not contribute to the appropriate party's campaigns.

It isn't a very good percentage, is it? What it indicates, though, is that it isn't impossible for Californians to get a CA CCW. If you look through the county info in the table, you see that (as you noted) rural counites have the bulk of the CCWs. The Bay Area counties and LA County fit the "impossible to get a CA CCW" mold very well. Politicians and celebrities get them, but not the little people. Right next door in Orange County (yay) however, it's much more doable (not "shall issue" but doable). CA is a long way from a "shall issue" state, and has a lot of irrational restrictions, but there IS a growing number of ordinary people (like me) who are finding out that it's possible (again, depending on where they live) to get one, and those people are applying for and receiving CCWs.

Vern Humphrey

August 21, 2007, 01:15 PM

The Bay Area counties and LA County fit the "impossible to get a CA CCW" mold very well. Politicians and celebrities get them, but not the little people.
And that's the whole point. The 14th Amendment guarentees us equal protection under the law, and California violates that along with the 2nd Amendment.

anygunanywhere

August 21, 2007, 01:54 PM

It isn't a very good percentage, is it?

No, it isn't. I am continually baffled why this glaring example of total hypocrisy is blind to the minions who robotically drink the koolaid the antis and dems spew forth about gun control/confiscation.

We need another revolution.

Oops! Is this turning political?

Anygun

Dan M.

August 21, 2007, 03:17 PM

Vern wrote:

The 14th Amendment guarentees us equal protection under the law, and California violates that along with the 2nd Amendment

As far as CCW goes, it's probably more accurate to say that a number of County Sheriffs violate it. There are some good ones who do their best to allow their county's citizens exercise their 2A rights. Sheriff James Allen (Mariposa County) and Sheriff Michael Carona (Orange County), for example, are two of the good ones.

Red6

August 21, 2007, 03:25 PM

"I'm actually not particularly against gun ownership from a, like, moral perspective. What is a fact though is that a gun is a tool for killing. It's a dangerous thing to have because it enables people to do serious harm in their moments of greatest weakness, when they succumb to rage or other anxieties.

So stop driving your car and burry your kitchen knives. Ask him, “Do you think a gun has some magical mind controlling powers. Do you think that as soon as you pick up a gun it will take away your free will, ability to think reason or make decisions?”

Of course, in the end, it is the people that do it, not the guns, but even so, society hardly needs every person to own weapons. In another post, you make it seem like it is the only thing that keeps a government from becoming a tyranny, but this is hardly what has happened in Europe, where no one carries guns. The argument is therefore hardly sound.

Do you mean like in the former Yugoslavia where the first thing the Serbs did as the nation was falling apart was to confiscate privately owned weapons? Or are you talking about Adolf, one of the first to come up with gun control laws all together. Stalin, Mao, Adolf, agree, people don’t need guns, the government will provide for your security.

As far as safety goes, I am shocked that people feel so insecure on the streets in America. What kind of Mad Max society have you got going there? The worst 'bad guys' I encounter sometimes are people that openly laugh at me for wearing a cool hat. I've never in my entire life been confronted with a gun in a threatening way (i.e. as something other than a museum piece). Surely this is a much more relaxed organisation of a society than one where everyone has a cocked gun under his shirt, always on the look-out for some madcap aggressor?

Just because you don’t talk about the crime in your streets does not mean there is none. Until VT the school shooting with the single highest death toll EVER was in Germany, Erfurt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1952869.stm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,449492,00.html

In fact, you had TWO school shooting back to back within 1 ½ years. Ask your “intellectual” European friend if he has a right to self defense? This natural right to self defense is about as basic as it comes; ants and monkeys understand the concept, why can’t he?

Also; gun owners will state that guns are necessary to rise up to their government if necessary. It occurs to me that it has never been more necessary than in the last eight years, going from the amount of damage the US has done to international relationships and wars. But where were all the gun-toting citizens? Despite your guns, you are just as codependent and harmless of and to the government as the rest of us are."

There is a reason why we have had a “republic” for 232 years and the Germans in this time an City states, Emperor, a republic, a dictator, and now a republic again. BTW, Switzerland, another nation with very liberal gun laws, has been a free nation how long? I wonder what 6 million Jews would have done had they been armed?

Some people deserve to be subjects of an oppressive system, keep talking.

mrrick

August 21, 2007, 03:44 PM

Ask him which part of Europe he's from :

"The part who's ass we kicked or the part who's ass we saved"

Vern Humphrey

August 21, 2007, 04:17 PM

As far as CCW goes, it's probably more accurate to say that a number of County Sheriffs violate it. There are some good ones who do their best to allow their county's citizens exercise their 2A rights.

When the state has a law that allows officials to violate civil rights, the state is the primary violator.

Red6

August 21, 2007, 04:19 PM

He doesn't need a gun.

With his huge brain, and intellectual glasses, he'll convince people like Idi Amin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam, the Ayatollah in Iran, OBL etc that through "dialog" they can solve all their problems.

This guy has the typical “sheep” mentality like so many in Europe. You have got to understand, there were thousands like him even in the Cold War who ran around screaming “Lieber Rot wie Tod” (Rather red than dead). Many in Europe would have been fully content with being under Soviet rule. There is a reason why Hitler could seize power and few did anything about it. Why so many in some European countries collaborated with the Nazi’s, why Mussolini and Franco could take and keep power the way they did. Look at how the East Germans lined up and followed the rules of their master in the DDR. You’re dealing with people who think like “subjects.”

Think about what statement he’s making about his people in general? He’s basically saying people are stupid and emotionally unstable and need to be sheep held in pens managed by their government. From what you’re telling us, that’s basically the end state when following through with his reasoning.

You're dealing with someone who thinks they're smart because they practice some form of group think within their crowd; someone who in their opening argument will basically base everything on the assumptions that a government can be trusted, that freedom is a stable and universal right respected by governments and people alike.

Essentially arguments for gun rights pivot on three pillars: Preservation of the Republic and freedom, the right to self/home defense, and recreation and leisure.

(Preserving the Republic)
Here’s the bottom line-
You can appeal to higher moral values.
You can resort to laws, conventions, treaties etc.
You can exert political and economic pressure.
When all else fails, you resort to violence or the threat thereof.

People without the means of force are only free at the grace of their political elite.

Again, why have we had a republic for 232 years? Teachers in schools teach about a balance of powers. That balance is not only there between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, it also exists between states and federal government, and the individual and his elected government. The second amendment is guarantor of this power to the people.

(The right to defense)
It’s a natural right as I said before. It’s like breathing or drinking water. What kind of state takes away the most fundamental right of self-preservation? Monkey’s, ants, a garden spider, even they understand this concept. But our intellectual European friends have moved on beyond this. The Police are not always there. In many countries by law they are not required to respond……. For example, in Germany alone (and they have less than 1/3 our population there were 2,500 murders last year: http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006ev/pcs_2006.pdf

(Recreation and leisure)
Ask him what he likes, then tell him you think it needs banned. Jet ski, boating, water ski etc pollute far to much. Skiing is to dangerous and costs society in medical expenses, scuba diving is dangerous and interferes with sea life, motorcycle is too dangerous, quad runners pollute, rock climbing defaces natural rock, mountain biking rips up the environment….. It does not matter what he says anything can be twisted into being evil and hazardous or damaging to the environment. Since the gun plays no significant role in “his” life he is generally agreeable with rules and restrictions placed on this sport and lifestyle. How open minded is that? Trap, skeet, hunting, target shooting, western shooting, the fun at gun shows, collectors…… he doesn’t care, because essentially he’s selfish and narrow-minded.

Arguments against gun ownership come in one form. They all argue in some form that the greater security of society supersedes the individual’s needs and wants, that guns need restricted for this collective safety.

ROMAK IV

August 22, 2007, 12:41 AM

Those of us who live in the US, for the most part, enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms, with exceptions being major metropolitan areas. The problem is the introduction of the various "isms" in the 20th Century, and the confusions that they inspire. The first being, that the RKBA is a right "recognized" by the Bill of Rights, and a prohibition on the government, NOT a means to justify the infringement on the right. Our entire system depends upon the voluntary compliance with the laws of the United States. Millions of citizens voluntarily pay taxes and comply with the laws, no matter how stupid that they are. Why? Because we understand we have a say in the matter and the government operates by our consent. When some politicians think they can force compliance or impose some unreasonable or illegal restriction against the people, they are actually endangering the very basis of the government. For the Assault Weapons Ban, it was an illegal law forced upon the citizens by a certain political ideology. Fortunately, it demise came about peacefully.

There is also the problem of Moaral Relativity! Those opposed to gun rights use it quite often. Basically, they see no difference between the death of criminals in the mdist of committing a crime and the innocent victim of that crime. That's why they count criminals shooting other criminals, criminals being shot by police, and criminals being shot by citizens with murders. Criminals being shot in self defense are not murder, they are not shot out of malevolence, they are shot out of expediancy. For the government to impede or outlaw self-defense, or in the case of firearms, the means to self defense, criminals run rampant, or in an even worse case, the government runs rampant. The book, Death by Gun Control catalogs the millions of people killed by their governments aided by gun control.

barman

August 22, 2007, 02:54 AM

I have pointed out in a different forum, the United States has saved France three times.

We saved them in WWI by turning back the big German offensive which they launched with the resources no longer needed on the Eastern Front after Russia capitulated (and a near thing it was, too.)

Hmm.

The American help was more than welcome, but to say that we would have lost without you is pure fantasy. We still had plenty of young teenagers in reserve who were eager to sacrifice themselves thanks to a very efficient state propaganda.

Mind you, I get pissed off when I hear that the US won single handedly WW1. That big offensive you talk about (the second battle of the Marne) was as much won by the French as it was by the Americans. If you visit France one day, I encourage you to check the WW1 battlefields on which the US Army was involved. You'll see that the French and the Americans were almost always fighting side by side. And don't forget that our boys (and the BRITS) had already been fighting for 3 years when you came.

We saved them in WWII by liberating them from the Germans.

And we saved them again in WWII by making sure they weren't "liberated" by the Russians.

We are very thankful for that. But when a few americans say that in order to be condescending towards me, I tell them that greatness is almost never hereditary.

PILMAN

August 22, 2007, 08:53 AM

I got more replys, any suggestions for replying to these?

"Yes, and I'm sure the reason he stabbed the person wasn't because he was shot.

I believe in self defense, and the reality of guns that can't be magically erased is just that. But that doesn't mean I have to like them, or even not absolutely detest them. People kill people but guns make it just easy and impersonal enough to enable more people to kille people.

Tell me if someone did break into your house and guns weren't a factor and there was a struggle, how far would you go? Knock them unconscious? Strangle them to death? Guns just make it so clean and simple.

In self defense you do what you have to do, but you won't necessarily go above and beyond that unless the stakes are higher, guns, knifes... things that make killing easy.

I don't have to like them and fear is a healthy response to technology that makes life easier to dispose of."

" How could they mistake it for a real gun? I thought guns were virtually banned in England and Australia? Is that to indicate that these countries are not as safe as we all presumed? Why not ban people who look shady or dress like a gang member? The ban was simply done because of cosmetics. People fear a gun because of what it looks like, yet despite the fact they are banned, they are still on edge that a toy gun could be a real gun? Doesn't seem possible in a country that has banned firearms.

Most firearms are banned, but that only makes illegal guns more difficult to obtain, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. Obtaining a firearm is more difficult in AU, but completely ridding a continent of all illegal weapons is not feasible possible- reducing the numbers is. If you are holding something that looks like a firearm, a police officer has to take a cautionary position and assume the damn thing is a firearm. That's why these things aren't allowed in public.

A gun is as dangerous as it's operator. I would fear the person holding the tool, not the tool it's self.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people! No ****. This doesn't mean a gun itself isn't an intrinsically dangerous tool.

Guns were designed to fire a projectile, what the operator chooses to do with the tool is their decision alone.

Designed to fire a projectile that can very easily kill a person. Fearing or being apprehensive around one is, once again, not unreasonable."

" Zionist wrote:Guns were designed to fire a projectile, what the operator chooses to do with the tool is their decision alone.

Yes, and nuclear bombs were designed to enable fissile material to reach critial mass and rapidly convert mass to energy. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Zionist wrote:How could they mistake it for a real gun? I thought guns were virtually banned in England and Australia? Is that to indicate that these countries are not as safe as we all presumed? Why not ban people who look shady or dress like a gang member? The ban was simply done because of cosmetics. People fear a gun because of what it looks like, yet despite the fact they are banned, they are still on edge that a toy gun could be a real gun? Doesn't seem possible in a country that has banned firearms.

No, they are simply more difficilt to get hold of (and perhaps surprisingly to you, people in the UK generally view this as a civil rights issue in the same way that they view interpretive dance as a branch of theoretical physics). They are still used (rarely) by criminal gangs, and in the days before people started talking to each other (or, at least, possibly agreeing to be in the same room as each other at some potential future date) the IRA obviously had an illegal armoury. They are still very rare - I have never seen a gun in my life (but I don't go looking).

And as I'm sure you can appreciate with your own country's sucesses in the war on drugs, banning something does not make it vanish into vapour.

I do agree with you that there is far, far more to gun related crime than lots of people having lots of guns. But the fact remains (and I admit a strong cultural bias here) that I'm perfectly happy living in a nation where people don't have the crazy idea that gun ownership is some kind of civil rights issue. Guns are designed to kill - you have to accept that unless you want to engage in semantic jiggery-pokery which will lead to the conclusion that MRI scanners were simply designed - for no particular reason - to polarise water molecules. They also make killing - or at least severe maiming - very easy. We are a species who are known to fly into wild rages, and do stupid things at such times, which we later regret. Put simply - I don't trust stupid humans with such dangerous 'inanimate objects'."

"I remember Prince Phillip saying that a person with a cricket bat can kill someone just as someone with an automatic gun.

Ok they are both inanimate objects requiring a person to use them in a violent way. But the efficiencies in which they can be used violently differs - quite considerably. The result is that we may just want to treat guns as weapons, with different controls. I have no problem with control, based not on fear of guns per se but based on the principle that just because you want a weapon to protect yourself does not mean you automatically have the right to own one, or that it is in the interest of scoiety that you should have a gun.

Myself, I think I go along with Queen Put Out the Fire."

"The fear probably has a cultural origin (Television), and also a hugely rational basis.
Ie; if I saw a gun, I would be pretty surprised and shocked to see it.

Is it loaded? Safety on? Where's the (possibly criminal) owner?

If you accidently shoot yourself with it, it's not going to make you any less dead, even if you're not afraid.

Combine_Dave

PS: Having said that, I don't mind using one (firearm), although I think it is better to keep it in online gaming, than real life. Less chance of injury that way."

"Give me a good rock to bash a rivals head in any day :lol:

Bombs are for chumps."

17poundr

August 22, 2007, 02:11 PM

dr wenkman wrote:

Europeans were not responsible for the majority of Heer losses. That credit goes solely to the Soviet Union entirely on the Eastern Front. 8/10 men in the German Heer died on the Eastern Front.

Well, I'm sorry, but incase you didnt know, The Soviet Union was basically Russia, with smaller countries attached to it... And almost all of it's population live in Europe.

Russians are Europeans!!! :rolleyes:

The US did a great job in helping defeat the U-boat menace, and were instrumental in getting the Lufwaffe finally out of the game...

Also, the 8th and 15th airforces were instrumental in bombing the Ploesti oilfields of Rumania, and thus created a very favourable cituation for all allies...

The US did much great things, and some mistakes... But so does everybody who embarks on war... They say that no plan survives first contact with the enemy...

I personally belive that the US-British-Commonwealth armies , airforces and navies, were a great great alliance that swept the Germans aside it anywhere it wanted to... (ok, we all had our Market-Gardens, and Hurtgen forrests), but all in all, it was a good partnership...

It was some idiots in the allied media who started playing on the Patton vs Monty animosity, and imho caused Hitler to see a much larger opportunity than there ever was when he desided to attack on the Ardennes and try to split the US & UK Armies...

If some ego's and story greedy journalists are forgotten, the US, Brits and Canadians put their backs into it, and prevailed!!!

And, I wish that we had gun laws like the US. Because anybody can tell you that gun crime is committed with unregistered guns, exept in the drunken argument gone sour case, where anything, a kitchen knife, frying pan can be used just as well... So, registered firearms arent the problem for the violence in the US...

Dan M.

August 22, 2007, 02:23 PM

When the state has a law that allows officials to violate civil rights, the state is the primary violator.

Or...

When the federal government has a law that allows states to violate civil rights, the federal government is the primary violator.

superhornet

August 22, 2007, 02:38 PM

When dealing with Euro anti's.....ask them to remember the following...."Arbeit Macht Frei"...

Dr. Peter Venkman

August 22, 2007, 04:04 PM

Well, I'm sorry, but incase you didnt know, The Soviet Union was basically Russia, with smaller countries attached to it... And almost all of it's population live in Europe.

Russians are Europeans!!!

The Soviet Union, NOT the rest of European nations you wish to jumble in along with it, killed 8/10 German Soldats. The Soviet Union, not France, Great Britian, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Poland, et cetera. I give credit to what western Europe did but it is unfair to pair them with the Soviet Union.

I personally belive that the US-British-Commonwealth armies , airforces and navies, were a great great alliance that swept the Germans aside it anywhere it wanted to... (ok, we all had our Market-Gardens, and Hurtgen forrests), but all in all, it was a good partnership...

I too believe it was a good partnership but overall it was a slow crawl to get into Germany.

It was some idiots in the allied media who started playing on the Patton vs Monty animosity, and imho caused Hitler to see a much larger opportunity than there ever was when he desided to attack on the Ardennes and try to split the US & UK Armies...

It's funny that the Germans followed the same path of attack three times in 30 years and no one saw it coming. WWI, the Germans go through Belgium. WWII, the Germans go through Belgium. The Battle of the Bulge, the Germans go through Belgium.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...err three times...

barman

August 22, 2007, 04:15 PM

WWII, the Germans go through Belgium.

I think it was actually considered impossible to make an armored division go through the Ardennes forest.

As stupid as the Maginot line concept sounds, the rare battles which occurred there were won by the French.

Red6

August 22, 2007, 06:18 PM

The only thing worse than having the enemy to ones front, is a Frenchman to your left side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Battalion

Since you’re French, I’ve always wanted to know, what was Vichy France all about? As a stupid American I can’t quite understand what went on there.

You know, in 2005 I visited your country and I liked it a lot. Everything outside Paris was great. Paris seemed like it was a nation of its own and it was typical of big cities, which I don’t care for. I liked Perone, where I visited your WWI museum, Normandy, and other places. As a former Airborne Ranger and whose grandfather was on the beaches of Normandy, in fact his brother is buried at the cemetery there I’m into military history a bit. I also visited Cantigny where our First Infantry Division stopped the German move 60 miles from Paris in the Great War. This is from the American battle Monuments Commission, http://www.abmc.gov/memorials/memorials/cy.php I do have pictures somewhere at home of the monument that still stands there. I’m surprised you guys haven’t torn it down and replaced it with a bust of De Gaulle. I wonder, do they even teach you enlightened and far more cultured French about the 85,000 Americans that partook in the Aisne-Marne Offensive? How would that have gone without US troops.

Some beautiful places for you to visit in your homeland; brought to you with American blood, sweat, and tears:

http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/su.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/sm.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/rh.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/no.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/ma.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/lo.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/ep.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/br.php
http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/am.php

De Gaulle never really did recover from our refusal to let him partake in the invasion, or that we more or less stopped and placed him out front to march through his Arc de Triomphe. Like it or not, you would be speaking German today if it were not for the US. But in your cultured way, you despise us for this.

Understanding the French is actually quite simple. In WWII some of your people fought on the German side after you lost and surrendered within six weeks, despite having no real numerical disadvantage to the Germans, with some ending up in North Africa fighting the Allied (Vichy troops). Subsequently these troops switched sides and fought with the Allied. However, the Allied early on under the command of Eisenhower after a battle had French prisoners. It was amazing even then to the US troops that a French prisoner found it appropriate to lecture the Americans as to what we had done wrong and how we could have fought the battle better. I guess in our uncultured minds we just can’t get it.

barman

August 22, 2007, 06:59 PM

Since you sound like the typical guy who hates France, let me tell you about a few things:

Every kid learns about the American involvement in both WW1 and WW2.

Vichy France was a bunch of old guys (former WW1 war heroes) thinking they could get it easier by collaborating with the ennemy. They lied to the population, sent thousands of french people to work in Germany in order to bring back war prisonners (POWs), and rounded up jews to be sent to concentration camps.

I’m surprised you guys haven’t torn it down and replaced it with a bust of De Gaulle. I wonder, do they even teach you enlightened and far more cultured French about the 85,000 Americans that partook in the Aisne-Marne Offensive? How would that have gone without US troops.

Such bitterness in your words...

As you are obviously trying to attack me on that tpoic, let me show you a few pictures of me visiting the Belleau woods battlefields and cemetary, as well as the Aisne et Marne memorial:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0040.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0042.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0044.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0052.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0054.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0055.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0056.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0057.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0058.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0059.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0065.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0066.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0068.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0069.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0071.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0072.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0082.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0074.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/river_of_deceit/IMG_0076.jpg

De Gaulle never really did recover from our refusal to let him partake in the invasion, or that we more or less stopped and placed him out front to march through his Arc de Triomphe. Like it or not, you would be speaking German today if it were not for the US. But in your cultured way, you despise us for this.

De Gaulle didn't Get on well with Roosevelt who thought he was a dictator in disguise.

Roosevelt originally had a plan for an American military occupation of France , called the AMGOT plan. It is thanks to De Gaulle and Winston Churchill that we got him to re-consider that option.

As much as De Gaulle was a pain in the ass of the USA, he was still a great influence on France in the long run. I don't believe in his decision to take France out of NATO, but he was at the heart of France's nuclear program.

What bothers me though is that people like you are just trying to rub our nose in the **** whereas you didn't come to save France in the first place, you came because Germany declared war on you first.

Say whatever you want but tons of people are grateful to the US over here for just letting us free of German occupation, even if that wasn't the first reason for which you came.

Understanding the French is actually quite simple. In WWII some of your people fought on the German side after you lost and surrendered within six weeks, despite having no real numerical disadvantage to the Germans, with some ending up in North Africa fighting the Allied (Vichy troops). Subsequently these troops switched sides and fought with the Allied. However, the Allied early on under the command of Eisenhower after a battle had French prisoners. It was amazing even then to the US troops that a French prisoner found it appropriate to lecture the Americans as to what we had done wrong and how we could have fought the battle better. I guess in our uncultured minds we just can’t get it.

Blah Blah Blah...

Lots of French people fought for the allies' side as early as 1940. I guess you never heard of French pilots flying for the RAF, Free French victories in Africa and Free French troopers landing on D-Day.

Silvanus

August 22, 2007, 07:37 PM

Don't listen to that stupid anti-Europe and especially anti-France talk. It's a bunch of BS.

Tommygunn

August 22, 2007, 08:09 PM

Lots of French people fought for the allies' side as early as 1940. I guess you never heard of French pilots flying for the RAF, Free French victories in Africa and Free French troopers landing on D-Day.

... Or French fifth columnists aiding the allies, communicating via codewords and others to assist the Normandy landing, etc., etc., and risking their lives in occupied France.
Barman, a number of very nice photos there -- thank you for posting them.
I feel compelled to apologize for my fellow countrymen. In some places in this country, in some venues, it has become popular to disdain the French ...maybe you've heard some of the silliness; "for sale, one french rifle in good condition, dropped once." And maybe you've heard dumber ones -- but I think I'll leave them out here.
Not that it's a good excuse but pperhaps some of it's a response to what we feel some French (in particular in my opinion Parisians) feel toward Americans. There's that old cliche': "what goes around come around."
And it's done in ignorance, without understanding ... often feeding on itself.

I think if the education system in America (which has, in the last 30 years, turnbed into a horrid incompetent joke) was better at educating American youth about 20th century European History, the kind of ignorant and stereotypical remarks made by a few in this thread, and by some other Americans in general, would not exist.

Red6

August 22, 2007, 09:14 PM

De Gaulle compromised the entire NATO defense plan with his stupid games. You had USAF bases and major supply depots smashed up into Germany to close and within rocket artillery range of the Warsaw Pact. Let me remind you that France paid 10 cents on the dollar for the appraised value of what US installations built with US tax dollars in France were worth. Just give me some De Gaulle history lesson, after all, we’re stupid Americans and you’re so cultured and educated. De Gaulle’s claim to fame post war was a nuke, a satellite and his attempts to boost the morale of a nation defeated in Algeria.

Anything can be argued as having an ulterior motive. I can say Mother Theresa was just buying a ticket to heaven and that’s why she devoted her life to Christ and God. You’re attempt at rationalization away the US sacrifice by claiming our interest was just in Germany and France was the road there does say something about you.

Red6

August 22, 2007, 09:37 PM

Do you have anything of substance to say?

Or are you only able to rant about other people’s education in posts using bad sentence structure, misspelled words, and near incoherent thoughts?

GoRon

August 23, 2007, 01:01 AM

Great photographs barman, thanks for posting them.

Dr. Peter Venkman

August 23, 2007, 04:00 AM

I went to France a few years back, Paris to be exact.

The worst thing about it was the Neon lighting all over, not the attitudes. :p

barman

August 23, 2007, 04:44 AM

Dear Red6,

Obviously you're stuck in your opinions. That is your right. I'm not going to argue with someone who's not ready to hear my views and puts words in my mouth (where did I say Americans are stupid?) in order to make me look bad.

But, as you seem to be certain that we don't give your troops enough respect, please check this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQzF4o3qM14

Maybe it will warm your cynical heart a little bit.

Nolo

August 23, 2007, 04:07 PM

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to read this entire thread, but I will make a statement:
Humans need certain things to survive. They need to eat, to sleep, to have shelter, to defecate, to remain healthy, to fend off predators, and to reproduce.
Refrigerators help us to eat, allowing us to save excess food, thus saving time not having to hunt.
Beds help us sleep, because they are more comfortable than hard soft ground, which allows them to sleep less, thus getting more work done.
Premade housing helps us have shelter, because it is sturdy enough to be there in the long term, making shelter no real issue. Plus it's darned comfortable to have central heating.
Toilets help us to defecate without waste, allowing us to both remain healthy and to save time by bot having to clean up poop.
Medicine helps us to remain healthy. Vaccines help us to avoid being sick, thus saving us the bedridden time.
Gun help us to be able to fend off predators without having to take a martial arts class and devote the time to true mastery (which takes far more time than a simple two hour class twice a week) as well as the workouts that are needed to keep in shape to effectively use said art.
Humans are amazing creatures. Why? We're all different. All lions are hunters. All horses are good runners. All spiders are excellent trap-setters. All humans are... doctors, lawyers, businessmen/women, teachers, designers, artists, the list goes on ad infinum. We need almost all the time we have to accomplish all those basic needs. Almost all. In order to fulfill our passion, we need more time. All of these inventions give us more time. And when humans have more time, they can devote more of it to what their good at, thus saving other people time and enjoying themselves in the process.
Not everyone has the time to become an expert in self-defense. Guns save you that time, which allows you to get more palatable work done.

Nolo out.

30 cal slob

August 23, 2007, 04:21 PM

barman,

very nice photos!

Havegunjoe

August 23, 2007, 04:38 PM

ArfinGreebly

August 23, 2007, 07:01 PM

Thanks.

A little perspective is a good thing.

Vive la France. Vive la liberté.

By the way, we have our own "Vichy contingent."

You'll find many of them in Washington D.C., seeking to appease insatiable tyrannies.

It is understood that the people of a country are seldom well represented by the government under which they find themselves.

It is also true here.

It is encouraging that the ideals of liberty are anchored on your side of the ocean as well as ours.

Red6

August 24, 2007, 11:05 AM

Something changed in certain parts of Europe.

There was a time where the French understood, when they truly were enlightened.

What a great gift:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3b/20050506131704!Statue_of_Liberty.jpg

Our liberty was not handed to us. It was achieved through force and violence. In fact we had just fought a war with ourselves shortly before this gift was given to us. What has changed from then to now?

The US was already by the mid 1800s its own nation, at that time their wasn’t globalization, no internet, transatlantic phone-line and two very large oceans separated us from Europe and Asia……. Why does this matter? Europe starting in the mid 1800s was rocked by socialist movements. Fist the Communist/Marxist movement, later the National-Socialist movement with the likes of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. The socialist thought, its nihilist world view devoid of God, based on a collective thought that centralizes power does not value the individual. After WWII Europe was not spared, even then you had the iron curtain and Soviet occupation in the East, radio Moscow, communist front groups etc sponsored and financed from the East. Europe for more than 150 years has been consumed with socialism. The difference between the right and the left is their view and handling of security and national identity. Economically a continental conservative is just as socialist as the far left, and even though the concept that even a Nazi (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was a socialist is unfathomable to most. In fact the later national socialist movements borrowed much of their ideas from the preceding communists whom they tangled with not because of true ideological differences, but because there can be only one living in the masters house, and the communists were the competition for power.

In 1989 the wall fell. But did the dogma get rejected? In Europe, today socialism has become culturally engrained. Many indeed identify their national heritage with some sort of socialist thought. Occasionally you’ll hear a German speak of an “Ordentliche Sozialpolitik.” There was a time where Frenchmen rose up, where portraits like the “Raft of the Medusa” inspired action. Today, you are hedonist, impotent, and no cause will make you react, not even your own. You’re societies are contemptible and decedent. The only people going to your cathedrals are American tourists and your old. You’re hollow and devoid of principals. A nation that gave us a statue like “Liberty” to celebrate freedom today slithers around with the likes of Saddam, Kadaffi, and won’t raise a finger to help the US even after 3,000 are killed until shamed into action. Talk my transatlantic friend, is cheap.

In the once Catholic nation of France your socialist health-care will pay for an abortion. Today you define apathy as morals, and weakness as strength. Your politicians show their strength by standing up to the US an ally (We won't bomb you), but cower in the face of some North Africans lighting your suburbs on fire. You define culture as “Europe won’t be a United States of Europe”, as you throw away your religion, your nation, and succumb to some Pan-European dream. You despise the label “surrender monkeys” and “socialists” but have people like Royal who have massive support of the sovereign.

I’m just a dumb uncultured American. Being dumb and with a very limited perspective, I don’t have to worry about understanding Hezbollah, and I prefer to stick with our “unlimited American insanity” as well.

Tommygunn

August 24, 2007, 11:24 AM

A nation that gave us a statue like “Liberty” to celebrate freedom today slithers around with the likes of Saddam, Kadaffi, and won’t raise a finger to help the US even after 3,000 are killed until shamed into action.

Oooooh, well said, well said!
Now ... if only we could get our own government not to bed down with the rest of the world's tyrants .......:banghead::banghead:

barman

August 24, 2007, 03:09 PM

Dear Red6,

I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of time to address your points. I will try to be brief, and please don't take my terseness as flippancy. Okay, here goes...

Our liberty was not handed to us. It was achieved through force and violence.

Same here! In fact, I'm sure that France has the U.S. beat on the violence aspect, if that is so important to you.

The US was already by the mid 1800s its own nation, at that time their wasn’t globalization

And, far from being its own country, France was an Empire. The birth of globalization, if you will.

Europe starting in the mid 1800s was rocked by socialist movements. Fist the Communist/Marxist movement, later the National-Socialist movement with the likes of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. The socialist thought, its nihilist world view devoid of God, based on a collective thought that centralizes power does not value the individual. After WWII Europe was not spared, even then you had the iron curtain and Soviet occupation in the East, radio Moscow, communist front groups etc sponsored and financed from the East. Europe for more than 150 years has been consumed with socialism. The difference between the right and the left is their view and handling of security and national identity. Economically a continental conservative is just as socialist as the far left, and even though the concept that even a Nazi (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was a socialist is unfathomable to most. In fact the later national socialist movements borrowed much of their ideas from the preceding communists whom they tangled with not because of true ideological differences, but because there can be only one living in the masters house, and the communists were the competition for power.

I agree with most of what you have written above. I don't care for socialists of the internationalist OR nationalist variety myself! Because, when you go to the extreme right or the extreme left, they are all pretty much a bunch of centralized-power, anti-Semitic ******bags, aren't they? However, you are totally wrong in saying that a center-right continental politician is just as socialist as the far left. Since you don't like history lessons, I'll just let you look into that for yourself.

In 1989 the wall fell. But did the dogma get rejected? In Europe, today socialism has become culturally engrained. Many indeed identify their national heritage with some sort of socialist thought. Occasionally you’ll hear a German speak of an “Ordentliche Sozialpolitik.”

I really think that you are exaggerating here, and throwing around generalities. I could point to the New Deal as an American socialist program, and say that "socialism is culturally engrained in America". Remember that France currently has a right-wing president, who, in his 3 months in office has passed mandatory minimum sentencing, tax breaks, and a reform of overtime laws (and that is just off the top of my head). But, considering what you go on to say, I don't think that you are equating "socialism" with any kind of economic theory at all, but rather some sort of malaise or apathy...

There was a time where Frenchmen rose up, where portraits like the “Raft of the Medusa” inspired action. Today, you are hedonist, impotent, and no cause will make you react, not even your own. You’re societies are contemptible and decedent. The only people going to your cathedrals are American tourists and your old. You’re hollow and devoid of principals. A nation that gave us a statue like “Liberty” to celebrate freedom today slithers around with the likes of Saddam, Kadaffi, and won’t raise a finger to help the US even after 3,000 are killed until shamed into action. Talk my transatlantic friend, is cheap.

Far be it for me to defend Chirac's actions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. You threw a lot of extra stuff in there, but I would remind you that the French are famous for standing up to their government in street demonstrations, and that American leaders have also easily cozied up to dictators, when it served her interests.

In the once Catholic nation of France your socialist health-care will pay for an abortion. Today you define apathy as morals, and weakness as strength. Your politicians show their strength by standing up to the US an ally (We won't bomb you), but cower in the face of some North Africans lighting your suburbs on fire. You define culture as “Europe won’t be a United States of Europe”, as you throw away your religion, your nation, and succumb to some Pan-European dream. You despise the label “surrender monkeys” and “socialists” but have people like Royal who have massive support of the sovereign.

What a hodgepodge! Look, you might want concentrate on affairs that concern you (French health care and religiosity not being of them). As for the US being an ally, haven't you read "Our Oldest Enemy"? France has always forged her own foreign policy, and I'm sorry, but I think that a lot of Americans are foolish in thinking that, in this Hobbsean world, countries are going to always act like "best friends forever". "A country does not have friends nor enemies, it only has interests". Or "Beware of entangling alliances", if you prefer the American version of the same sentiment.

I’m just a dumb uncultured American. Being dumb and with a very limited perspective, I don’t have to worry about understanding Hezbollah, and I prefer to stick with our “unlimited American insanity” as well.

If you insist. I think that your argumentation is histronic and that you know very little about France. I have not always agreed with French foreign policy, as I'm sure you were not a big fan of Jimmah Carter when he was president. Thank God Chirac is gone.

But don't even start talking to me about the international jihad that is happening today. France deports radical imams, unlike the UK, for example. Currently in the US, you have terrorist training camps, footbaths in universities for muta, the Council on American Islamic Relations leading your elite around by their noses, a president who won't shut up about "the Religion of Peace(TM)", debates in Congress whether John Does can be sued for reporting suspicious behavior, a guy arrested on 2 FELONIES for leaving a couple of Korans in the ****ter, etc. etc.

I gotta go. No offense, but I've heard a million guys like you before, with your arguments based on little more than emotion, and you are nothing special.