MachIVshooter
Member
I don't even know where to start with this, other than to say if you wish to your household to be devoid of anything that reminds you of innocent people being killed, you've picked the wrong damn hobby.
Guns and Ammo magazine and guns of Islam
- Thread starter mjrodney
- Start date
- Status
doberman
Member
If anything, if at all, I would ask G&A how can a gun hold any religious belief?
It's a gun, period.
Guns of the Middle East? Ok, I can buy that.
Guns of the former Soviet Union. Sure.
Guns of WWII. Well you know where I'm going with this.
I am looking forward to the upcoming issue of Guns of the Lutherans!
I really hope they mention the pot luck suppers in the basement of the church as well.
It's a gun, period.
Guns of the Middle East? Ok, I can buy that.
Guns of the former Soviet Union. Sure.
Guns of WWII. Well you know where I'm going with this.
I am looking forward to the upcoming issue of Guns of the Lutherans!
I really hope they mention the pot luck suppers in the basement of the church as well.
I do not think MJRodney was as upset about the actual guns of Islam, as much as he was to the timeliness and tasteless publishing of an article about those guns at this precise moment during our, and others, conflict with Islamo Fascists (and at the same time as much of the rest of the Muslim world condones the acts of the terrorists by way of their silence). An article glorifying anything that is part of our enemies cuulture could certainly be seen as tasteless and even worse by those of us committed to keeping the terrorists down; while at the same time such an article could be seen by our enemies as a sure sign that we are coming around to showing them a respect that they do not deserve. That is, in my opinon, less than responsible and less than respectful of our soldiers who are in harm's way on a daily basis on the part of Guns and Ammo Magazine.
Sure people read about and collect Civil War guns of both sides, and others read about and collect Nazi firearms, other do likewise with Japanese arms, and communist bloc arms, but the thing is that those conflicts are long over. People in the USA, for the great part, did not glorify the weapons of Hitler or of Krushchev while those conflicts were ongoing between those tyrannts ruled and the USA. If they had done so they would have paid a high price for what would have amounted to supporting an enemy during time of war. So what MJRodney seems, to me, to be upset about is the extremely poor timing and taste of Guns and Ammo magazine. I agree with him somewhat and think that he had every right to do what he did - that is called freedom of speech, and I applaud him for standing by his convictions.
All the best,
Glenn B
Sure people read about and collect Civil War guns of both sides, and others read about and collect Nazi firearms, other do likewise with Japanese arms, and communist bloc arms, but the thing is that those conflicts are long over. People in the USA, for the great part, did not glorify the weapons of Hitler or of Krushchev while those conflicts were ongoing between those tyrannts ruled and the USA. If they had done so they would have paid a high price for what would have amounted to supporting an enemy during time of war. So what MJRodney seems, to me, to be upset about is the extremely poor timing and taste of Guns and Ammo magazine. I agree with him somewhat and think that he had every right to do what he did - that is called freedom of speech, and I applaud him for standing by his convictions.
All the best,
Glenn B
Hatchett
Member
Lighten up Francis.
Gord
Member
Glenn Bartley said:
Sound-byte buzzwords make you sound credible!
So by that logic, being that they seem to like their AKs an awful lot, should I be recoiling in horror at the sight of our unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizer American gunshops selling them?
Honestly, what the hell is a "gun of Islam"?
If we're talking modern arms, they use whatever surplus they can get their hands on. They've got AKs, RPGs and maybe a couple of crappy clone handguns here and there.
Antique arms (the work-of-art angle)? Then "that conflict is long over" and the point is moot. You choose.
These are not the Guns Of Islam, so know your logic is faulty. Guns Of Islam are just exactly what they sound like, guns produced by Muslims that have been produced through strong Muslim influence mostly toward looks and adornment of the design, but also to fit and function. You are obviously missing my point because you seem to be self assured that I am talking in some language of buzz words. I stated my position quite plainly, please do not try to belittle my viewpoint by saying I made use of buzz-words, that is not at all true. I used words that were and are straight forward and to the point. If they buzz you in some manner, that is your own misconception of how I used the vocabulary in my post; or is it you are trying to put a spin or buzz into my words to discredit my opinion. My point was plain and fairly simple, Guns and Ammo exhibited bad tastem in my opinion; and they exhibited what I believe to be a lack of respect. You may feel free to disagree with my opinion, but please do not feel free to imply that my words were anything but what I meant them to be - straight talk plain and simple.
All the best,
Glenn B
R.W.Dale
Member
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
3...
2...
1...
Caipirinha
Member
Damn those evil guns!
Sistema1927
Member
I think that we should implement censorship, and put mjrodney in charge of the "Bureau of Common Decency". We need to crack down hard on everyone who doesn't agree with us.
Oh, wait, isn't that what the Islamo-Fascists are already doing?
Freedom, it's a wonderful thing.
Oh, wait, isn't that what the Islamo-Fascists are already doing?
Freedom, it's a wonderful thing.
Everyone else has already made the points I wanted ot make but I think I'd like to touch on this. First have you looked for its, because its out there. It not good tv so you probably won't see it on the news. Second, why should they? I don't expect christians to be apologizing for their few stray nuts. As a gun owners I don't apologize for the guy that claims he doesn't have to pay taxes and puts up a web page asking for people with tanks to join him at his compound.
I read the article - so what. I also built a model of the Yamato and my uncle was at Pearl Harbor. I own a Glock - Austria also gave us Hitler.
It was historical article and the post is ridiculous as the article was not anti-american. If someone has an article on the technicalities of Nazi guns - so what. If they propose Nazi ideological positions - as some charmers do at the gun show - that's different but not the case here.
It was historical article and the post is ridiculous as the article was not anti-american. If someone has an article on the technicalities of Nazi guns - so what. If they propose Nazi ideological positions - as some charmers do at the gun show - that's different but not the case here.
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
mjrodney,
I can kind of understand where you are coming from, but, then again...maybe not. I admit...Islamofacism is a problem. In fact...many people have accused me of being an "Islamaphobe" because I don't have a favorable impression of Islam - I mean...I've actually read the Koran and fully understand what it advocates (and I contend that there is no distinction between "Islamofacism" and Muhammed's Message to mankind - they are one in the same).
Nevertheless, I do enjoy reading about guns, and the Moors and Ottomans produced some very cool guns in thier time. So...I think I might enjoy that article.
If I were you, I wouldn't let it "eat-me-up". I mean...I don't think the article was intended as a sign of disrespect to it's readers - or Americans.
Hope this helps.
NASCAR
I can kind of understand where you are coming from, but, then again...maybe not. I admit...Islamofacism is a problem. In fact...many people have accused me of being an "Islamaphobe" because I don't have a favorable impression of Islam - I mean...I've actually read the Koran and fully understand what it advocates (and I contend that there is no distinction between "Islamofacism" and Muhammed's Message to mankind - they are one in the same).
Nevertheless, I do enjoy reading about guns, and the Moors and Ottomans produced some very cool guns in thier time. So...I think I might enjoy that article.
If I were you, I wouldn't let it "eat-me-up". I mean...I don't think the article was intended as a sign of disrespect to it's readers - or Americans.
Hope this helps.
NASCAR
I understand where you're coming from, that the muskets in question were made "by them, for them", and by extension, were used to further the cause of Islam in some respect.
But it doesn't matter which nation made them, guns by themselves are just tools - it's the people who use them that are good or evil, therefore I have no issue with an article educating me about weapons from a bygone era in any part of the world.
Nor do I have a problem with articles written about the AK-47, even though this is the actual rifle that the Taliban uses to kill U.S., Canadian and NATO soldiers. (And nor will this fact prevent me from owning one some day.)
At the end of the day I just sincerely doubt that the author was glorifying Islam, helping the terrorist cause, or eroding our own by writing about those muskets.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I grew up during the Cold War (was born in '70), and I read a lot about weapons of the Soviets. It was interesting, and informative.
I was given a subscription to Popular Mechanics when I was 10 or so, and continously renewed it through high school. About every second or third issue had a some sort of article on Soviet weapons systems. I remember an issue around 1980 that had a Soviet "Alfa" class (Лира/Lyra class) sub on the cover. Those subs were remarkable (45 knots/51 mph at 3000 feet, could complete a 180-degree turn at flank speed in 40 seconds, and could reportedly dive below 4000 feet). Even though they were noisy at speed, they were much admired, even though at that moment those subs were cruising the Atlantic looking for our missile subs. I suppose running an article like that wasn't considered a problem.
My great-uncle subscribed to Popular Mechanics in the late 1920's through the 1950's, and I have a lot of issues from the '20s, '30s, and '40s. There were many articles about German and Japanese weapons in there, during the buildup to WW2 and even during the war itself. It apparently wasn't considered a big deal then, either.
I personally don't see a problem with the article. We're not at war with all Muslims (or even most of them)--I'd remind everyone that the sysadmin of this message board is Muslim, IIRC--and Muslim craftsmen made some fine firearms and blades (Damascus steel comes to mind).
I was given a subscription to Popular Mechanics when I was 10 or so, and continously renewed it through high school. About every second or third issue had a some sort of article on Soviet weapons systems. I remember an issue around 1980 that had a Soviet "Alfa" class (Лира/Lyra class) sub on the cover. Those subs were remarkable (45 knots/51 mph at 3000 feet, could complete a 180-degree turn at flank speed in 40 seconds, and could reportedly dive below 4000 feet). Even though they were noisy at speed, they were much admired, even though at that moment those subs were cruising the Atlantic looking for our missile subs. I suppose running an article like that wasn't considered a problem.
My great-uncle subscribed to Popular Mechanics in the late 1920's through the 1950's, and I have a lot of issues from the '20s, '30s, and '40s. There were many articles about German and Japanese weapons in there, during the buildup to WW2 and even during the war itself. It apparently wasn't considered a big deal then, either.
I personally don't see a problem with the article. We're not at war with all Muslims (or even most of them)--I'd remind everyone that the sysadmin of this message board is Muslim, IIRC--and Muslim craftsmen made some fine firearms and blades (Damascus steel comes to mind).
NASCAR MAN, your statement clearly indicates to me that you do NOT in fact, "fully understand" the Koran. I have spent a lot of time studying the Qur'an, as well as various books of tafsir (exegesis), and neither the political ideology of fascism nor the whole "convert or die" meme that gives so many the vapors are actually advocated the Qur'an.
Islam is very clear regarding the killing of innocents (Just for the record, it's against it). Every Muslim of my acquaintance (a substantial number) is horrified and repulsed by the murder of innocent civilians and the misuse of our faith by, as you may call them, "Islamofascists". Even the term "Islamofacism" however, is not an accurate description but is rather intended as a sort of knee-jerk emotional buzzword. It certainly displays an ignorance of what the ideology of fascism actually is or what the terrorists want.
Unfortunately, there are always those who believe that "They Are Out to Get Us". They don’t much care who "They" are. If one "They" fails them, they will find another. These "They" must be fought to the death. It’s us or "They".
Muslims are just the most current example of "They". Muslims hate us and want to enslave us. We must therefore gird our loins and prepare for an apocalyptic conflict that will determine whether Western civilization will survive. A war of peoples approaches, and we must win it.
An unvarying characteristic of those who live in constant fear of "They" is the belief that their current enemies are implacably evil and united in pursuit of his enslavement. Frequently they haven’t had the most minimal experience of this relentless enemy. Few of the fearful have passed time in Muslim countries. Many do not have passports. The proportion who speak Arabic or Farsi or actually know any Muslims is very low. It doesn’t matter. They have a specific personality that wants an enemy and they will always find one.
They endow the enemy with near-magical powers. The utter irrationality of this doesn’t faze them because they doesn’t notice it. Only sub-clinical paranoia can explain the view that Muslims are going to enslave America, or even want to. A reasonable person looking at the Arab world sees a disunited, technologically and industrially backward group of failed dictatorships (Most installed by the British and French after WWI) that couldn’t enslave Guatemala.
The notion that the enemy is demonically evil and magically powerful justifies any countermeasures, certainly including nuclear war, which latter appeals to the their adrenals. They believe they are practicing realism. The usual argument is that the enemy – Russia, the Muslims, soon perhaps China – doesn't "value life the way we do". The stupidity is patent, but the fearful allow nothing to compromise their delusion. Since the enemy is determined to destroy us, we must be willing to kill them all.
The tendency to see life as conflict with a merciless opponent engenders another favorite preoccupation, that We Have Grown Soft. Yes. Americans no longer chop cordwood of a morning, don’t hunt bears. The rude strength that made the country great is sapped by suburban life. We are become a nation of metrosexuals. Awake, America! Before it is too late! Gird those loins. In the end, atrocities are committed because we believe absurdities.
It's all just the same ancient-tribal-fear-of-the-other crap writ large
yhtomit
Member
.41 Dave: Thanks for that post.
Sadly enough, there *are* organized hate-mongers (of various stripes) in the world, some of them determined enough / persuasive enough to drive people to senseless acts of violence, or sometimes ("merely") to blinding prejudice.
OTOH, I wouldn't want to belittle certain current or historical threats -- the Soviet Union, for instance, really did quite a bit of creeping in several directions, and some Muslims have established oppressive governments in the name of their faith (and there are some who favor a reestablished Caliphate). I don't think it's fantasy to identify certain movements / attitudes / organizations as antithetical to freedom.
(I do think it's silly to be mad at G&A for running what sounds like an interesting feature, though. This discussion now makes me want to go read the current issue)
timothy
Sadly enough, there *are* organized hate-mongers (of various stripes) in the world, some of them determined enough / persuasive enough to drive people to senseless acts of violence, or sometimes ("merely") to blinding prejudice.
OTOH, I wouldn't want to belittle certain current or historical threats -- the Soviet Union, for instance, really did quite a bit of creeping in several directions, and some Muslims have established oppressive governments in the name of their faith (and there are some who favor a reestablished Caliphate). I don't think it's fantasy to identify certain movements / attitudes / organizations as antithetical to freedom.
(I do think it's silly to be mad at G&A for running what sounds like an interesting feature, though. This discussion now makes me want to go read the current issue
)timothy
Mr Kablammo
Member
For many centuries a Kalifate lorded it over the captive populations of the Balkans. The Wars of National Liberation ended only in 1912 or thereabouts. Those wars were ferocious, more ferocious than our own civil war. Having your children abducted and transformed into slave-soldiers of the Caliph is going to induce some bitterness...
One of the grievances of Osama bin Laden is the abolition of the Kalifate in 1924. If the 'guns of Islam' were used against those that fought and died for freedom from Islamic imperialism. And if OBL is now reviving that war as part of the mission to ressurect the Kalifate. And if he has drawn the USA into that war by repeated and increasingly deadly attacks. Then the logic that the 'overseas and in the past' guns of Islam are, in the spirit, 'here and now' holds.
As an associate of an organization that sustained the Janisaries, I have to think that the logic of the OP is reasonable. This may well be the latest new phase in a very old war. If the US and the West holld fast to victory the potential future world war will be sealed up into some alternative universe. If we lose, the OP may be more right than he knows...
One of the grievances of Osama bin Laden is the abolition of the Kalifate in 1924. If the 'guns of Islam' were used against those that fought and died for freedom from Islamic imperialism. And if OBL is now reviving that war as part of the mission to ressurect the Kalifate. And if he has drawn the USA into that war by repeated and increasingly deadly attacks. Then the logic that the 'overseas and in the past' guns of Islam are, in the spirit, 'here and now' holds.
As an associate of an organization that sustained the Janisaries, I have to think that the logic of the OP is reasonable. This may well be the latest new phase in a very old war. If the US and the West holld fast to victory the potential future world war will be sealed up into some alternative universe. If we lose, the OP may be more right than he knows...
Mr Kablammo
Member
Sorry, the connection is so slow that I thought the first never posted.
Acera
Member
LOL
Be careful guys April might have come early this year.
theCZ--you are correct about this holiday. I hate Hallmark holidays.
I am still laughing from Hatchett's comment "Lighten up Francis". That was funny.
saspic
Member
I sincerely hope...
that our enemies abroad are still using snaphaunce muskets. Maybe their frizzens will jam. Or something.
These weapons have long since been relegated to history.
Remember the first rule of war, "Know your enemy."
I found the story interesting and informative. It teaches that in the Islamic world, weapons weren't considered simple tools as they are in the west. The men who carried them considered these guns as part of their identity. They were extensions of their personality, and evidence of their manhood, like beards in some countries.
Besides, the adornments on some of those arms were truly beautiful. Do you truly believe our fighting men and women will be hurt by this article? They're tougher than that.
that our enemies abroad are still using snaphaunce muskets. Maybe their frizzens will jam. Or something.
These weapons have long since been relegated to history.
Remember the first rule of war, "Know your enemy."
I found the story interesting and informative. It teaches that in the Islamic world, weapons weren't considered simple tools as they are in the west. The men who carried them considered these guns as part of their identity. They were extensions of their personality, and evidence of their manhood, like beards in some countries.
Besides, the adornments on some of those arms were truly beautiful. Do you truly believe our fighting men and women will be hurt by this article? They're tougher than that.
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
41Dave and yhtomit,
Thanks for your replies, for your “so-called” arguments deriding those who have an unfavorable view of the Koran eloquently illustrate how many on the left view Gun Rights advocates: incapable of understanding reality -- living in fear -- “sub-clinically” paranoid. Actually, these aren’t even arguments – they are in effect ad Hominem meant to characterize those who disagree as “mentally deranged”.
Of course, Gun Rights advocates say something to the effect “Look at the Facts…and they’ll show gun ownership is a good thing.” – but the left doesn’t want to be bothered by such trivialities as the facts, they just want to refer to anyone who disagrees with them as paranoid “Gun Nuts”.
Likewise, when I am accuse of being a “Gun Nut” (oops…I meant an “Islamaphobe”!), I will often say – “If you don’t believe me, then read the Koran”. But few take me up on this offer…and people like yourself will even counter that understanding the Koran can only be fully realized via additional, external literature (i.e., the exegesis to which you refer) even though the Koran specifies that such literature is a “perversion” (Reference Sura 3.7).
So…the next time ya’ hear a leftist wield the accusation “Gun Nut” yet refuse to examine the facts, then the readers of this post may have a clue as to why it is so. To this, I say…”Examine the facts, and make your decision based on those facts”.
Furthermore, I’d like to also state an important fact: the majority of the world’s Muslims are peaceful – despite what the Koran advocates – and this says a lot of good things about the state of Human Nature (i.e., generally, we seek peace). Unfortunately, these same peaceful Muslims are disturbingly quiet about the impetus for Al Qaeda and it’s ilk (a literal and accurate interpretation of the Koran) – and this also says a lot about Human Nature (generally, most of us are quite passive - too much so).
Thanks for your replies, for your “so-called” arguments deriding those who have an unfavorable view of the Koran eloquently illustrate how many on the left view Gun Rights advocates: incapable of understanding reality -- living in fear -- “sub-clinically” paranoid. Actually, these aren’t even arguments – they are in effect ad Hominem meant to characterize those who disagree as “mentally deranged”.
Of course, Gun Rights advocates say something to the effect “Look at the Facts…and they’ll show gun ownership is a good thing.” – but the left doesn’t want to be bothered by such trivialities as the facts, they just want to refer to anyone who disagrees with them as paranoid “Gun Nuts”.
Likewise, when I am accuse of being a “Gun Nut” (oops…I meant an “Islamaphobe”!), I will often say – “If you don’t believe me, then read the Koran”. But few take me up on this offer…and people like yourself will even counter that understanding the Koran can only be fully realized via additional, external literature (i.e., the exegesis to which you refer) even though the Koran specifies that such literature is a “perversion” (Reference Sura 3.7).
So…the next time ya’ hear a leftist wield the accusation “Gun Nut” yet refuse to examine the facts, then the readers of this post may have a clue as to why it is so. To this, I say…”Examine the facts, and make your decision based on those facts”.
Furthermore, I’d like to also state an important fact: the majority of the world’s Muslims are peaceful – despite what the Koran advocates – and this says a lot of good things about the state of Human Nature (i.e., generally, we seek peace). Unfortunately, these same peaceful Muslims are disturbingly quiet about the impetus for Al Qaeda and it’s ilk (a literal and accurate interpretation of the Koran) – and this also says a lot about Human Nature (generally, most of us are quite passive - too much so).
- Status
