# Am my wrong?



## HOPELESS (Sep 1, 2012)

In fl. I hear about kids shooting themselfs or like today their mother! What is this you own a gun it is your job to keep it safe! Now this is what I am asking, it sound like most of these cases the guns are small 380s without safety, I will not own one because of that, sh-- happens. So am my incorrect, are these guns unsafe or is it the owners that are unsafe?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

No gun, or tool for that matter, is unsafe. Actions are unsafe. I'm not familiar with the circumstances around the events you spoke of, but it does not matter whether a gun has an external safety or not. It isn't unsafe. What people do with guns, like leaving one where small children can get their hands on it, is what is unsafe. Never leave a loaded gun lying around, first of all, and don't leave your children unattended and/or untrained. Lots of failures lead up to these type shootings, but the gun always gets the blame. That is the dumbest excuse for failure, ever!


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

All guns are loaded in my book and therefore no gun should be left unatended.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

HOPELESS said:


> In fl. I hear about kids shooting themselfs or like today their mother! What is this you own a gun it is your job to keep it safe! Now this is what I am asking, it sound like most of these cases the guns are small 380s without safety, I will not own one because of that, sh-- happens. So am my incorrect, are these guns unsafe or is it the owners that are unsafe?


_*Firearms*_ are not inherently unsafe.

I can't say that for people though.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

HOPELESS said:


> ...most of these cases the guns are small 380s without safety...are these guns unsafe or is it the owners that are unsafe?


If you refuse to own a small .380 pistol, either double-action without safety-lever or single-action with safety lever, it is you who is "unsafe." What you wrote is an instance of irrational bigotry, not reasoned, thoughtful choice.
Condemning a tool of one kind or another because someone has caused havoc with it-or with something like it-tells me that you are exhibiting irrational fear. Irrational fear is, of itself, an unsafe condition.
Irrational fear is unsafe and causes tragedies because it leads the fearful to do thoughtless, fearful things when confronted with the object that is feared. "Thoughtless, fearful things" are done when you relax your thoughtful, rational control over the object.

Do you refuse to use axes because recently some imbecile nut-case attacked some New York City police officers with one? Of course not. It was the imbecile nut-case who made the attack, not the axe. Right?
Have you ever cut yourself with a kitchen knife? Was it because you made a mistake, or was it the knife's fault?

A woman who lets her gun-toting purse fall into the hands of a curious, bored toddler is the one who is to blame when the toddler accesses the gun and shoots the woman.
As others here have already pointed out: It wasn't the gun's fault, no matter what the gun was.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I carry a pistol every day it has never decided I want to shoot myself. I have a few guns of all types at my home none of them have loaded themselves and started shooting them selves either. Stupid people let ignorant people or children gain access to their gun and bad things happen.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I've been around firearms for over 50 yrs. Not once have I had an accidental or negligent discharge. And I've never shot someone that I didn't mean / intend to. 

I'm not bragging. I'm just saying that it's entirely possible to be in and / or around the vicinity of a firearm, and not have it turn against you.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> I've been around firearms for over 50 yrs. Not once have I had an accidental or negligent discharge. And I've never shot someone that I didn't mean / intend to.
> 
> I'm not bragging. I'm just saying that it's entirely possible to be in and / or around the vicinity of a firearm, and not have it turn against you.


I've seen it happen (the negligence, that is - not the turning against you) and all it damaged, luckily, was the shooting coach's car. And pride.
The kid didn't stay on the team for long after that. About 2 seconds, max....


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> I've seen it happen (the negligence, that is - not the turning against you) and all it damaged, luckily, was the shooting coach's car. And pride.
> The kid didn't stay on the team for long after that. About 2 seconds, max....


Oh yeah.....I know that it can and does happen, way too often. My point was, that it doesn't have to happen.

Some will tell you it's just a matter of time until you have an AD or ND. I'm out to prove them wrong.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Oh yeah.....I know that it can and does happen, way too often. My point was, that it doesn't have to happen.
> 
> Some will tell you it's just a matter of time until you have an AD or ND. I'm out to prove them wrong.


Right behind you.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Right behind you.


...Good place to be.
Never in front.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> Right behind you.


Be a good sport and back up a few feet.

You're making me nervous.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> Oh yeah.....I know that it can and does happen, way too often. My point was, that it doesn't have to happen.
> 
> Some will tell you it's just a matter of time until you have an AD or ND. I'm out to prove them wrong.


Never say never...............


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Be a good sport and back up a few feet.
> 
> You're making me nervous.


Just returning the favor...


----------



## HOPELESS (Sep 1, 2012)

Sound like I opens can of worms with this but I will say at you guys are correct! Guns don't kill people do. Now two of these cases are different I think one out of state had gun in a bag made for a gun secure baby unzip bay I was told that was a three year old the other was gun was in glove box he was two both cases are sad . So now I go back to the gun would a safety prevented this?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

HOPELESS said:


> Sound like I opens can of worms with this but I will say at you guys are correct! Guns don't kill people do. Now two of these cases are different I think one out of state had gun in a bag made for a gun secure baby unzip bay I was told that was a three year old the other was gun was in glove box he was two both cases are sad . So now I go back to the gun would a safety prevented this?


Not necessarily. It could have, but it depends on the circumstances.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

What is the law for keeping guns in the US? Can you legally leave them wherever you want?

In Norway we have to have them in approved safes that weigh at least 600 lbs, or if they are lighter they must be attached to the floor and walls.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> _*Firearms*_ are not inherently unsafe.
> 
> I can't say that for people though.


I might argue with that first one in regards to this piece....






No arguments on the second line.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> What is the law for keeping guns in the US? Can you legally leave them wherever you want?
> 
> In Norway we have to have them in approved safes that weigh at least 600 lbs, or if they are lighter they must be attached to the floor and walls.


As far as I know, there is no law mandating guns must be kept in a safe. Having a gun in a safe sort of negates the purpose for having one. Only an idiot would leave a loaded gun unattended when there are small children around, and no law is going to stop and idiot from being an idiot. Most laws are useless pieces of legislation intended to make some politician look good in the public eye, not to keep you safe. Only education, training and accountability breeds safety. Nothing else.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> As far as I know, there is no law mandating guns must be kept in a safe. <snip>.


Some states have Safe Storage Laws. This site gives details.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

GCBHM said:


> Having a gun in a safe sort of negates the purpose for having one. Only an idiot would leave a loaded gun unattended when there are small children around, and no law is going to stop and idiot from being an idiot. Most laws are useless pieces of legislation intended to make some politician look good in the public eye, not to keep you safe. Only education, training and accountability breeds safety. Nothing else.


That depends on the purpose. In Norway the purpose is sport, not self defense, so the reason for the safe is to make sure that a person who is not supposed to get his hands on a gun cant get a hold of it.

You are absolutely right about there being no law stopping an idiot from being an idiot, but at least I know that the idiot next door to me does not own a gun. I guess the thought behind the rules here is that limiting peoples access to firearms breeds safety, and if a person passes training and gets the go-ahead from a club and the government, he or she can get a gun. So its sort of a safety before the safeties you are suggesting.

But I guess this is one of those arguments that will be forever in a stalemate. Like discussing religion 

I've read some stuff on this forum that got me thinking "What the f*ck is going on over there", and by over there I mean in the US. What kind of constant threat is haunting you?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Some states have Safe Storage Laws. This site gives details.
> 
> Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts


California: sometimes
Massachusetts: yes

Interesting.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

eriitj: 


> I've read some stuff on this forum that got me thinking *"What the f*ck is going on over there"*, and by over there I mean in the US. What kind of constant threat is haunting you?


It's called the "2nd Amendment" and the rest of the bill of rights. The constant threat we have is our own government. If that has to be explained I suggest that you read up on history.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> That depends on the purpose. In Norway the purpose is sport, not self defense, so the reason for the safe is to make sure that a person who is not supposed to get his hands on a gun cant get a hold of it.
> 
> You are absolutely right about there being no law stopping an idiot from being an idiot, but at least I know that the idiot next door to me does not own a gun. I guess the thought behind the rules here is that limiting peoples access to firearms breeds safety, and if a person passes training and gets the go-ahead from a club and the government, he or she can get a gun. So its sort of a safety before the safeties you are suggesting.
> 
> ...


You're assuming the idiot next door to you does not own a gun. It may be safe to say the idiot isn't supposed to by law, but that doesn't mean he doesn't. There is only one purpose our constitution mandates the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, and it is stated clearly.

What haunts us? Nazi Germany ring a bell?


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

desertman said:


> eriitj:
> 
> It's called the "2nd Amendment" and the rest of the bill of rights. The constant threat we have is our own government. If that has to be explained I suggest that you read up on history.


Aw, come on, isn't that a bit outdated?  You select your own government after all 



GCBHM said:


> You're assuming the idiot next door to you does not own a gun. It may be safe to say the idiot isn't supposed to by law, but that doesn't mean he doesn't. There is only one purpose our constitution mandates the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, and it is stated clearly.
> 
> What haunts us? Nazi Germany ring a bell?


The idiot next door cant get a gun legally and he cant steal one either. This means that it is very difficult for him to get a gun. Sure, there are always exceptions, but they are rare because it is so difficult to get guns 

But how does you carrying a gun 24/7, and hiding guns around your house "just in case" help you from dictators in Europe?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> Most laws are useless pieces of legislation intended to make some politician look good in the public eye, not to keep you safe.


Very good GCBHM, very good!


> What haunts us? Nazi Germany ring a bell?


It's amazing how quickly they forget. Can't happen here they say not in this day and age, that's just crazy talk. The average German was shocked when the concentration camps were liberated. Couldn't have happened then either.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Very good GCBHM, very good!
> 
> It's amazing how quickly they forget. Can't happen here they say not in this day and age, that's just crazy talk. The average German was shocked when the concentration camps were liberated. Couldn't have happened then either.


Hahaha even if I own a gun I'm not going to take on a invading nation with a CZ 75


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

Besides, if your government is that hostile, why not let it be replaced by a foreign one?  

If Germany invades again, fair enough. They can topple the government and steal our oil, but as long as the people survive then I dont give a shit.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> Hahaha even if I own a gun I'm not going to take on a invading nation with a CZ 75


It's not about you having a gun. It's about everyone having a gun. Like the Japanese said of not invading the US mainland. There is a gun behind every blade of grass. It's always amusing to see such intelligent insight from those who were conquored by tyrants and saved by the US.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

GCBHM said:


> It's not about you having a gun. It's about everyone having a gun. Like the Japanese said of not invading the US mainland. There is a gun behind every blade of grass. It's always amusing to see such intelligent insight from those who were conquored by tyrants and saved by the US.


Always amusing to see such intelligent insight from the great saviors


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> Always amusing to see such intelligent insight from the great saviors


Yeah, I can only imagine. Our country hasn't been occupied since we won our independence. The only real problem we face today is a tyrannical government working to take our means of defense, along with ruining our economy. But as long as the people have means to defend liberty, we'll be fine.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

GCBHM said:


> Yeah, I can only imagine. Our country hasn't been occupied since we won our independence. The only real problem we face today is a tyrannical government working to take our means of defense, along with ruining our economy. But as long as the people have means to defend liberty, we'll be fine.


You have only been independent for a little over 200 years, and you have your own continent! 

And like I said, you select your own government. So you are in need of protection from a system you created yourself, and are capable of changing simply by voting.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

eriitj said:


> <snip!>
> 
> I've read some stuff on this forum that got me thinking "What the f*ck is going on over there", and by over there I mean in the US. What kind of constant threat is haunting you?


eriitj, a lot of it is rampant paranoia, but I know I'll get in trouble for saying so. (I'm used to it, as are the others here used to me saying that).


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> You have only been independent for a little over 200 years, and you have your own continent!


And you have a flair for noticing the obvious. Tell me. Why is it every foreigner thinks they know better for the US? Do you guy really believe you're smarter?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> eriitj, a lot of it is rampant paranoia, but I know I'll get in trouble for saying so. (I'm used to it, as are the others here used to me saying that).


Rampant paranoia...LOL! Liberals.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Yeah, I can only imagine. Our country hasn't been occupied since we won our independence. The only real problem we face today is a tyrannical government working to take our means of defense, along with ruining our economy. But as long as the people have means to defend liberty, we'll be fine.


GC. we both know we disagree about things now and then (  ) but have you read what you wrote there? WHY, oh why,would ANY government want to ruin its own economy? Apart from, obviously, pissing off the Right-Wingers who control the country at prese... I can't even go on. It hurts. Please stop.

Edit: Sorry, forgot "because rampant paranoia"


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

SailDesign said:


> eriitj, a lot of it is rampant paranoia, but I know I'll get in trouble for saying so. (I'm used to it, as are the others here used to me saying that).


I think I'm getting myself in trouble here as well 



GCBHM said:


> And you have a flair for noticing the obvious. Tell me. Why is it every foreigner thinks they know better for the US? Do you guy really believe you're smarter?


Smarter than electing a system to protect me but that I end up needing protection from again and again? Yes, yes I do.

As a foreigner who knows a different system, is it not possible that there might be something to what I'm saying?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> GC. we both know we disagree about things now and then (  ) but have you read what you wrote there? WHY, oh why,would ANY government want to ruin its own economy? Apart from, obviously, pissing off the Right-Wingers who control the country at prese... I can't even go on. It hurts. Please stop.
> 
> Edit: Sorry, forgot "because rampant paranoia"


Well, it isn't that anyone wants to ruin the economy. I'm quite sure that the liberals who promote socialism think that is what's best for the whole, which is a flawed thought process. Just the same, those war hawks who think we need to smash every nail with a sledge hammer is equally flawed. You know I'm no fan of the GOP or the Dems as both have the same agenda; control. They just go about it by slightly different platforms as to fool the masses. Either way, the economy is ruined.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> I think I'm getting myself in trouble here as well
> 
> Smarter than electing a system to protect me but that I end up needing protection from again and again? Yes, yes I do.
> 
> As a foreigner who knows a different system, is it not possible that there might be something to what I'm saying?


I'm not sure what you're saying wrt government, first. You've only danced around gun control. And as far as the system we have goes, what we have now is not the system established by our founders; however, it has evolved into exactly what our founders feared. I have visited your country, and it is beautiful, but not without fault. No society is. But with regard to owning guns, and the laws which govern that, the only people that laws apply to are those who abide by them. Criminals posses guns illegally, so making more laws to take guns away from law abiding citizens does not protect them. It only makes them victims. It's really very elementary.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Well, it isn't that anyone wants to ruin the economy. I'm quite sure that the liberals who promote socialism think that is what's best for the whole, which is a flawed thought process. Just the same, those war hawks who think we need to smash every nail with a sledge hammer is equally flawed. You know I'm no fan of the GOP or the Dems as both have the same agenda; control. They just go about it by slightly different platforms as to fool the masses. Either way, the economy is ruined.


"The economy is ruined...." After a 6-year presidential term-and-a-half that has DOUBLED (Yes, look it up in your Funk & Wagnall) the Dow index. Doubled.

Yeah - the economy is ruined.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

GCBHM said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying wrt government, first. You've only danced around gun control. And as far as the system we have goes, what we have now is not the system established by our founders; however, it has evolved into exactly what our founders feared. I have visited your country, and it is beautiful, but not without fault. No society is. But with regard to owning guns, and the laws which govern that, the only people that laws apply to are those who abide by them. Criminals posses guns illegally, so making more laws to take guns away from law abiding citizens does not protect them. It only makes them victims. It's really very elementary.


You are right, no government is perfect. I'm gonna leave it at that, we have different ways of seeing it and that is fine


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> You are right, no government is perfect. I'm gonna leave it at that, we have different ways of seeing it and that is fine


Fair enough. Wrt to guns and safety, I believe the only true way to be safe is through education, training and accountability. It really doesn't matter what laws exist. We don't enforce half of what's on the books until it is convenient.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

eriitj:
I have no business telling you how to run your country or what rights you shall retain. *Likewise you have absolutely no business telling us how to run ours.* Who the hell do you think saved your sorry asses during World War Two? You like it where you are fine. We kind of like it the way we have it here. Why can't you just leave us the hell alone.



> And like I said, you select your own government. So you are in need of protection from a system you created yourself, and are capable of changing simply by voting.


What an asinine statement! Every government in some way or the other was selected by the people who live under it. We see how well that turned out. Only with some of these types of governments the people had no means to fight back. You can see how well that turned out also. The difference with ours is we are a "Constitutional Republic" and one of the last free nations on earth because of it. Everyone no matter where they live should fear their government. Governments by their very nature are a corrupt entity and a monopoly. The people who run it only care about their own personal power and self aggrandizement. People will prostitute themselves, lowering themselves to the lowest common denominator, just to get elected to some crummy little political office. Got to be a reason why. You want to put your faith and trust in these loathsome swines? You go right ahead.



> "The law has been used to destroy it's own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which it's real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." "But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder." --- The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author.


Interesting reading. I suggest you pick up a copy and study it.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> eriitj:
> <snip> *Likewise you have absolutely no business telling us how to run ours.* Who the hell do you think saved your sorry asses during World War Two? You like it where you are fine. We kind of like it the way we have it here. Why can't you just leave us the hell alone.<major snip>


d'man - he was asking, in order to findout, in order to make an informed decision. Way to go in helping him feel that we are a thinking, rational place to be able to converse.

As for who saved whose asses in WW2 - it is easy for the country that was NOT invaded to play High & Mighty. Again - way to go. I suggest you read up on the Nazi atrocities in those countries that WERE invaded before going all "'Murika" about it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
Arguing with you on these matters is a fruitless waste of time. We've done it God knows how many times. I know plenty about World War Two and Nazi atrocities. I wonder how the Nazi's were able to get away with it? I suggest you do some reading up on it yourself. Not only that Sail if they didn't need our help, why then didn't we just stay the hell out of it? I believe we were invaded at Pearl Harbor or was that a figment of my imagination? I know that was not a state back then and our homeland wasn't invaded. Right? There were freakin' U-boats right along our own shoreline. I think it is you who needs a history lesson.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> Arguing with you on these matters is a fruitless waste of time. We've done it God knows how many times. I know plenty about World War Two and Nazi atrocities. I wonder how the Nazi's were able to get away with it? I suggest you do some reading up on it yourself. Not only that Sail if they didn't need our help, why then didn't we just stay the hell out of it? I believe we were invaded at Pearl Harbor or was that a figment of my imagination? I know that was not a state back then and our homeland wasn't invaded. Right?


Methinks you need to learn what "invasion" is. Bombing a navy base, no matter HOW heinous, is not "invasion". The Nazis (no apostrophe needed, BTW) "got away with it" by having a VASTLY larger army than other European countries.

And if arguing it is so painful - why do you keep bringing up the same tired [email protected]?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*eriitj*;

The Second Amendment isn't "outdated" at all. It's what guarantees all of our personal liberties, if all else fails.
Yes, we could revolt against our own government. We did that once before, if you remember your history. That's why we're no longer British colonies.

Just because there seems to be no pertinent foreign threat right now, does not guarantee that there will not be a pertinent foreign threat some time in the near future.
Radical Islam brings that to mind.
And reference to Nazi Germany is quite pertinent as well: They took Norway by surprise, didn't they? How well does your own crystal ball work, nowadays?

But most important is the knowledge that, in areas where concealed carry of a defensive firearm is unrestricted, violent crime against people has radically decreased.
I know that in Norway, that is less of a problem, since your population is more homogeneous and fewer people live in poverty. In our very heterogeneous country, with many illegal entrants who have come here for economic relief and many native-born who refuse to join the workforce, we are experiencing a serious problem with violent crimes against people.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> ...WHY, oh why,would ANY government want to ruin its own economy?...


No government would do that with ruin as the intention, but many governments have done that believing that they could construct a better system.
Recent Example: The Soviet Union. Earlier Example: Nazi Germany.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> No government would do that with ruin as the intention, but many governments have done that believing that they could construct a better system.
> Recent Example: The Soviet Union. Earlier Example: Nazi Germany.


Not going to argue there, but the implication earlier seemed to be that the government was "working to" ruin the economy. Seemed strange, so I questioned it...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign;


> And if arguing it is so painful - why do you keep bringing up the same tired [email protected]?


Because you asked for it, and I can't let you get away with such utter nonsense.



> Methinks you need to learn what "invasion" is. Bombing a navy base, no matter HOW heinous, is not "invasion".


What difference does it make? An invasion is an invasion no matter how it is accomplished. To quote FDR "Yesterday, December 7 1941, a date which will live in infamy. The United States of America was *suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.*" To you it was nothing more than a little bombing? I suppose Germany never invaded Great Britain either according to your way of thinking. So what if the Luftwaffe dropped a few bombs or a few V1 or V2 missiles were lobbed over the English Channel? As long as it wasn't done by ground forces how could that be considered an invasion? Right? If they weren't invaded then why did they go to war?



> The Nazis (no apostrophe needed, BTW) "got away with it" by having a VASTLY larger army than other European countries.


Wrong! The Nazi's (apostrophe included BTW) could have been stopped by France in 1936 before they marched into the Rhineland in violation of The Treaty of Versailles. Neville Chamberlain in 1938 signed the Munich Agreement, relinquishing a region of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi's. The European nations could have easily stopped Hitler had they chose to. Instead they did nothing. By 1939 the Nazi's were indeed a force to be reckoned with. Churchill couldn't wait for the United States to enter the war otherwise Great Britain would have been reduced to ashes. As usual the European nations would rather leave it up to the United States to fight their wars. Even though America was attacked by Japan the United States government chose to concentrate on defeating Hitler first which led to atrocities such as the Bataan Death March. If it wasn't for "Murika" with its industrial might and resolve the whole world might have been reduced to ashes. Methinks you had better hit the history books. I think it was George Santayana who stated: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it". How's that for tired old crap?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

eriitj:


> Hahaha even if I own a gun I'm not going to take on a invading nation with a CZ 75


How well did the Russians do in Afghanistan? More bombs were dropped over North Vietnam than all of Europe during World War Two. How well did that work out? I kind of think that if the United States were ever invaded by land 100 million or so gun owners would indeed be a force to be reckoned with. If our own government decided to declare war against their own people what makes you so sure that the military would comply? And not turn those same weapons against the government that ordered them to do so? Something to think about.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

eriitj said:


> ...If Germany invades again, fair enough. They can topple the government and steal our oil, but as long as the people survive then I dont give a shit.


Obviously, you aren't Jewish, or a Communist, or one of any number of "forbidden persons."
Equally obviously, you weren't an adult during the German occupation, or even alive at the time.
Maybe you should do a little research.
Or change your name to Quisling.

Oh, and *desertman*, the apostrophe is indeed incorrect: "Nazi's" indicates possession; "Nazis" is the plural.
SailDesign gets it right some of the time.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

Holy sh*t you guys are still going!  I have to say, must of what is being said here is utter rubbish that could only come from a particular type of person. You make a lot of assumptions and you have a very special way of seeing things  

You guys are the prime example of stereotypes that most of the US is trying to take distance from.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Ah, we now welcome our very own Norwegian troll.
(Trolls are traditional in Norway, after all.)

OK, *eriitj*, you've just lost my participation.
I like trolls no better than I like lutefisk.

He's all yours, guys. I'm outta here.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

These pretzels are making me thirsty. :drinkers:


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

eriitj said:


> Holy sh*t you guys are still going!  I have to say, must of what is being said here is utter rubbish that could only come from a particular type of person. You make a lot of assumptions and you have a very special way of seeing things
> 
> You guys are the prime example of stereotypes that most of the US is trying to take distance from.


I am thinking that you have helped me with my stereotype of smarmy know it all pricks from the country that my Grandfathers couldn't wait to get away from. I'm out of here myself.
GW


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

From experience, I know that it is very difficult to argue with blonde haired, blue eyed Europeans who have lived under the government's thumb for centuries. The USA is not so old, so it is easy to make the argument that we are not as advanced in our thinking about the functions of governments. It is probably correct to say that our greatest statesmen died two hundred years ago, when we still had vast frontiers to contend with, so the question of arms was not even an issue - everyone outside of the major cities needed them, period.

But, it is also probably correct to say that those statesmen had already learned the hard truths about government that were true, then, and are still true today - governments just barely work, and they are all corrupt, by their very nature. Still, some government is necessary to protect the weak and establish a standard for civilized behavior. The less government needed, the better. Unfortunately, government does not exist without politicians, because somebody has to form coalitions between the dozens of factions that will exist over any important issue.

Also unfortunate is the fact that politicians so frequently believe that the use of lies, half-truths, and outright deceptions is necessary to obtain the 'proper' outcome. This is what our 'founding fathers' understood all too well when they crafted our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that they believed would preserve us as a nation of free individuals. Because of this, they kept it simple, and allowed for the individual states to 'fill in the blanks' with legislation that the people of their specific region more or less agreed with. This allowed people to move about freely and settle in the places whose laws they were willing to abide by. Amazingly, it worked very well, for as long as there was a vast frontier for the really free people to inhabit, far from government restriction. This frontier allowed men to live by their wits...or die as a free man, a concept that has not existed in the 'civilized' world for centuries, for the most part.

Europeans, while undoubtedly more cultured (by the standards they have created for themselves) have lived under monarchies and dictatorships for centuries, so socialism is actually an improvement for them. The ancestors they remember mostly never knew the freedom of the frontier, so they don't really believe in _individual_ freedom - they mostly believe in making the collective more palatable for the common man, with benevolent rulers having the final word.

Americans, at least the ones who know their own history, still believe in freedom for the common man - do whatever you are big enough to do, as long as you don't trample others, in the process. This attitude has great benefits, as well as great liabilities, because not all of the 'big' people are nice, and not all of our politicians want to serve the people who elected them. The two most important guarantees that our constitution intended to help preserve individual freedom are free speech and the right to bear arms, and the longer we can keep them in effect, the longer we will maintain the individual freedom that we love. Americans, for the most part, do not believe it is inevitable that we will follow the same course as Europe...if we can hold on to our Constitutional rights. We instinctively know that free speech and an armed citizenry are the first things to disappear in totalitarian countries, and so we fight against all efforts to diminish those freedoms.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Obviously, you aren't Jewish, or a Communist, or one of any number of "forbidden persons."
> Equally obviously, you weren't an adult during the German occupation, or even alive at the time.
> Maybe you should do a little research.
> Or change your name to Quisling.
> ...


Steve - I'm afraid my opinion of you just fell a few dozen notches. I know this probably will wash off like water from a duck's back, but I am f'ing disgusted by some of the rhetoric and jingoistic chest-thumping here last night. Way to welcome someone who came looking for information.

"Quisling?" Seriously, you thought that was a good thing to mention. eriitj was right - some stereotypes are there for a reason.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> From experience, I know that it is very difficult to argue with blonde haired, blue eyed Europeans who have lived under the government's thumb for centuries. <snip>
> 
> Europeans, while undoubtedly more cultured (by the standards they have created for themselves) have lived under monarchies and dictatorships for centuries, so socialism is actually an improvement for them. <more snip>
> 
> Americans, at least the ones who know their own history, still believe in freedom for the common man - do whatever you are big enough to do, as long as you don't trample others, in the process. <snipoppppp>


You self-righteous prick. Honestly.

"... so long as you don't trample others..." just like you trampled eriitj? Try living by what you write.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> You self-righteous prick. Honestly.
> 
> "... so long as you don't trample others..." just like you trampled eriitj? Try living by what you write.


Your agenda is starting to show.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> You self-righteous prick. Honestly.
> 
> "... so long as you don't trample others..." just like you trampled eriitj? Try living by what you write.


You've really stooped to a new low, Sail. But frankly, that doesn't surprise me. I know your kind, having traveled amongst them in my youth, though even they were not as rabid as the current crop from the left. I've let a few of your comments to me slide because I'd rather take the high road and do as my mom taught me. But this post of yours has hit the bottom of the barrel. Why don't you pick another site to infect.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> You've really stooped to a new low, Sail. But frankly, that doesn't surprise me. I know your kind, having traveled amongst them in my youth, though even they were not as rabid as the current crop from the left. I've let a few of your comments to me slide because I'd rather take the high road and do as my mom taught me. But this post of yours has hit the bottom of the barrel. Why don't you pick another site to infect.


Try reading the comments that inspired my post - as if you had no idea of what was being discussed.

"Infect." Nice touch.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> Your agenda is starting to show.


Have no agenda. But when people make snide comments about "blonde haired, blue eyed Europeans" I wonder what THEIR agenda might be.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Have no agenda. But when people make snide comments about "blonde haired, blue eyed Europeans" I wonder what THEIR agenda might be.


Pardon me for not being on the most recent mailing list for what is or is not politically correct speech. I did not realize that Scandinavians were sensitive about their most common physical attributes. Please feel free to refer to me as a knuckle-dragging, hulking ******* - I think I prefer it to 'prick,' although I have to admit it does makes me smile to have a knee-jerk liberal show his true feelings.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Ah, we now welcome our very own Norwegian troll.
> (Trolls are traditional in Norway, after all.)
> 
> OK, *eriitj*, you've just lost my participation.
> ...


It was never my intention to troll, but whatever.



goldwing said:


> I am thinking that you have helped me with my stereotype of smarmy know it all pricks from the country that my Grandfathers couldn't wait to get away from. I'm out of here myself.
> GW


Your grandfather mot probably left because there was nothing here for him, he could not support himself here. Lots of bottom feeders left to find a "better" life because they had no choice.



Bisley said:


> freedomsfreedomsfreedomsfreedoms.


Having to carry a firearm to protect yourself at all times. Yes, freedom.



Bisley said:


> Pardon me for not being on the most recent mailing list for what is or is not politically correct speech. I did not realize that Scandinavians were sensitive about their most common physical attributes.


I'm actually quite happy with being blonde and blue eyed, so dont worry about it


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> It was never my intention to troll, but whatever.
> 
> Your grandfather mot probably left because there was nothing here for him, he could not support himself here. Lots of bottom feeders left to find a "better" life because they had no choice.
> 
> ...


Reading your posts, I am reminded of an old saying of Mark Twain. Steve made a good point about the trolls. Your condescending remarks about this country, and its people, set no more better with us than it would with you, so to continue on proves you are, in fact, trolling. Now, you're free to do as you wish, but it does not mean you're smarter, more cultured or even more enlightened. You're just another foreigner who thinks he understand life better b/c his country has been around longer. But as Twain said, ignorance ain't what you don't know, it's what you do know that ain't so. Let that marinate....before you try to set us straight.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

Did you consider that my condescending remarks could be a reply to a condescending remark? And how is asking if there really is a point to you hiding guns around your house is necessary "trying to set you straight"? Why is it that when a foreigner criticizes your system you get so defensive?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> but it does not mean you're smarter, more cultured or even more enlightened.


Amen, brother! That's the way most "Progressives" feel. Yet when they present their arguments they only prove how ignorant they really are. It's amazing that they despise our country so much and it's founding principles and want to turn it into the same type of countries that millions have so desperately fled or are trying to flee. They kind of have this attitude that they really like eating steak yet they want it to taste like rotten fish. Their ultimate goal is to control every aspect of our lives. In order to achieve that the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights must be abolished. It really is that simple.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

eriitj said:


> Having to carry a firearm to protect yourself at all times. Yes, freedom.


I never carried a firearm until I started having grandkids. I was a big, strong guy and never thought anyone in their right mind would attack me. But, I got older and the number of people I wanted to protect got larger. That coincided with an increasing influx of illegal immigrants, a greater threat from drug addicts, and increasing number of gang related activities. But what really inspired me to arm myself was the senseless killings of innocent people by foreign terrorists and domestic mental cases. Statistics would tell me that, even now, I'm unlikely to ever need a lethal weapon.

But, bad things happen to good people every day, somewhere in this big country, and it isn't such a chore to carry an insurance policy with me that says some evil person is not going to have sole jurisdiction over whether a member of my family is to draw another breath. I have life insurance, vehicle insurance, property insurance, and liability insurance, so why wouldn't I want insurance for something as precious as the safety of my family?



> I'm actually quite happy with being blonde and blue eyed, so dont worry about it


It is a physical trait that I find attractive - but don't get the wrong idea. :mrgreen:


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Boy, this thread went sideways in a big way...


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Amen, brother! That's the way most "Progressives" feel. Yet when they present their arguments they only prove how ignorant they really are. It's amazing that they despise our country so much and it's founding principles and want to turn it into the same type of countries that millions have so desperately fled or are trying to flee. They kind of have this attitude that they really like eating steak yet they want it to taste like rotten fish. Their ultimate goal is to control every aspect of our lives. In order to achieve that the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights must be abolished. It really is that simple.


Really.. Please realize: I dont despise your country, I dont despise your principles, I have no interest in trying to turn it around to fit my type of country or visa versa. If this is the message you got from reading these posts, you need to read them again. Asking "Why would you do this?" etc is not my way of trying to change the constitution of another country.

Shit you are stupid. Yes, you. Not your country, but you as an individual.

Get the difference?


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

TAPnRACK said:


> Boy, this thread went sideways in a big way...


Yes..


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> Really.. Please realize: I dont despise your country, I dont despise your principles, I have no interest in trying to turn it around to fit my type of country or visa versa. If this is the message you got from reading these posts, you need to read them again. Asking "Why would you do this?" etc is not my way of trying to change the constitution of another country.
> 
> Shit you are stupid. Yes, you. Not your country, but you as an individual.
> 
> Get the difference?


Clearly you're too daft to understand. Do try to have a good life, however.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

It's easy to be a prick, online. I guess some of us just can't resist, and others just walk out in front of a locomotive and wonder what hit us.


----------



## eriitj (Jan 30, 2015)

GCBHM said:


> Clearly you're too daft to understand. Do try to have a good life, however.


In socialist Norway it is hard not to have a good life.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

TAPnRACK said:


> Boy, this thread went sideways in a big way...


They usually do when condescending foreigners come to enlighten us. It's humorous, actually.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> They usually do when condescending foreigners come to enlighten us. It's humorous, actually.


It's interesting to watch the Mob mentality come out full force in these threads. "Ooooh - there's someone different, let's gang up on him!"

How about next time you try to educate him about how you feel, and why you feel the need to carry? It is such a weird concept to the rest of the world that they usually ask in all seriousness because the concept is just, well, "foreign."


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> It's interesting to watch the Mob mentality come out full force in these threads. "Ooooh - there's someone different, let's gang up on him!"
> 
> How about next time you try to educate him about how you feel, and why you feel the need to carry? It is such a weird concept to the rest of the world that they usually ask in all seriousness because the concept is just, well, "foreign."


Sail, he wasn't interested in being educated. He had an agenda from the start, which eventually became clear. It isn't the fact that he is foreign that is offensive. It's the condescending tone that comes with the self-appointed agenda that intended to insult disguised by trying to enlighten us on something they know little about that offends.

The opinions of someone who is clearly devoid of a lot of facts are unnecessary at best, and certainly as unwelcome as it would be if the roles were reversed. God forbid a savage American attempt to school a culturally polished Hollander who clearly knows more about civility than any American ever will. Please. It's boring and full of grandiose delusion.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Sail, he wasn't interested in being educated. He had an agenda from the start, which eventually became clear. It isn't the fact that he is foreign that is offensive. It's the condescending tone, self-appointed, unenlightened opinions with the attempt to insult disguised by trying to enlighten us of something they know little about that offends. It is unnecessary at best, but certainly as unwelcome as it would be if the roles were reversed.
> 
> God forbid a savage American attempt to school a culturally polished Hollander who clearly knows more about civility than any American ever will. Please. It's boring and full of grandiose delusion.


GC, go back and read from his first post (it's on Page One) Then read replies and ask yourself if your quote ^^ here is accurate.

Oh, and in case you missed it in your fervor, he's Norwegian, not a "Hollander." Says so right in his header.

If having a differing opinion is "intent to insult" then you must get insulted a lot. Sorry.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> GC, go back and read from his first post (it's on Page One) Then read replies and ask yourself if your quote ^^ here is accurate.
> 
> Oh, and in case you missed it in your fervor, he's Norwegian, not a "Hollander." Says so right in his header.
> 
> If having a differing opinion is "intent to insult" then you must get insulted a lot. Sorry.


You seem to forget I was there. Having or expressing an opinion isn't an insult. Disagreeing with someone over opinions is not an insult. It's not so much what you say, but how you say it. Granted we all have been a little "cheeky" per se, but let us be clear on one thing. No one is going to stand for a foreigner educating them on their country, right, wrong or indifferent, especially when what they think they know is flatly wrong. Having an opinion is one thing. Basing it on anything other than actual facts is indicative of the fact one is ignorant. Expressing it only proves that one is a fool. No one asked him what he thought about our gun laws or government. He took it upon himself to come surfing to troll the uncultured Americans, so please, let us give it a rest. Shall we?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> You seem to forget I was there. Having or expressing an opinion isn't an insult. Disagreeing with someone over opinions is not an insult. It's not so much what you say, but how you say it. Granted we all have been a little "cheeky" per se, but let us be clear on one thing. No one is going to stand for a foreigner educating them on their country, right, wrong or indifferent, especially when what they think they know is flatly wrong. Having an opinion is one thing. Basing it on anything other than actual facts is indicative of the fact one is ignorant. Expressing it only proves that one is a fool. No one asked him what he thought about our gun laws or government. He took it upon himself to come surfing to troll the uncultured Americans, so please, let us give it a rest. Shall we?


Not yet....

his first post in this thread reads: "What is the law for keeping guns in the US? Can you legally leave them wherever you want? In Norway we have to have them in approved safes that weigh at least 600 lbs, or if they are lighter they must be attached to the floor and walls."

Doesn't sound condescending, merely wondering about laws here, and explaining (so you know where he's coming from) what the law is on his country. Seemed reasonable enough.

Then you came in saying you didn't know of any laws about storage, and I provided a link for you and him.

On page 2 he says"I've read some stuff on this forum that got me thinking "What the f*ck is going on over there", and by over there I mean in the US. What kind of constant threat is haunting you? " and the shit hit the fan, so to speak. I see a reasonable question from someone in a country that has NO carry laws (as in NO-ONE can carry) asking why we feel we need to. "Cheekily", maybe, but it was a valid question.

After that the mob took over. How DARE he question our Constitutional Rights? How dare he think he can tell us how to live!!?

Sorry - the overnight postings just plain sickened me. As you may have noticed.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Not yet....
> 
> his first post in this thread reads: "What is the law for keeping guns in the US? Can you legally leave them wherever you want? In Norway we have to have them in approved safes that weigh at least 600 lbs, or if they are lighter they must be attached to the floor and walls."
> 
> ...


I know, I wasn't in the middle of that, but wrt to how I addressed our friendly Scandinavian, it was, in my opinion, albeit "cheeky", relatively polite and accordingly. Again, initially he seemed perfectly harmless; however, the hidden agenda emerged in the end. Please keep in mind that he is a foreigner, and he also had a choice as to how he responded. How he responded, regardless of the address, represents his character. Most seem to forget that little bit in their attempts to self-justify.

Btw, regarding our constitutional rights, he has no place. It doesn't matter if he likes it, understands it or approves of it anymore than we to his. So yeah...how dare he.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I know, I wasn't in the middle of that, but wrt to how I addressed our friendly Scandinavian, it was, in my opinion, albeit "cheeky", relatively polite and accordingly. Again, initially he seemed perfectly harmless; however, the hidden agenda emerged in the end. Please keep in mind that he is a foreigner, and he also had a choice as to how he responded. How he responded, regardless of the address, represents his character. Most seem to forget that little bit in their attempts to self-justify.
> 
> Btw, regarding our constitutional rights, he has no place. It doesn't matter if he likes it, understands it or approves of it anymore than we to his. So yeah...how dare he.


Most seem to forget that he was also writing in a foreign language for him. Just how much nuance can you personally get into a Norwegian sentence? I know I have no hope. However, I cut the guy some slack because he's not talking his own language. Poor guy probably read the title of the thread and wondered if he's been saying it correctly all these years. "Am my right?"

I'm not mocking the OP, who could well have been ;let down by a voice-to-text ap (which is what it looks like) .


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I know, I wasn't in the middle of that, but wrt to how I addressed our friendly Scandinavian, it was, in my opinion, albeit "cheeky", relatively polite and accordingly. Again, initially he seemed perfectly harmless; however, the hidden agenda emerged in the end. Please keep in mind that he is a foreigner, and he also had a choice as to how he responded. How he responded, regardless of the address, represents his character. Most seem to forget that little bit in their attempts to self-justify.
> 
> Btw, regarding our constitutional rights, he has no place. It doesn't matter if he likes it, understands it or approves of it anymore than we to his. So yeah...how dare he.


I believe it was desertman who started the downhill trend with his post:



> It's called the "2nd Amendment" and the rest of the bill of rights. The constant threat we have is our own government. If that has to be explained I suggest that you read up on history.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I believe it was desertman who started the downhill trend with his post:


Maybe so, but at the end of the day, we all have a choice over how we respond, and how we choose to respond says more about us than anyone. This is what I focus on in my personal endeavor to progress and improve.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> I believe it was desertman who started the downhill trend with his post:


Thank goodness, you were there, to bring civility back to the thread.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> Thank goodness, you were there, to bring civility back to the thread.


I don't remember doing that - but if you say so.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm not all that much of a fan of group hugs, but if there was ever a present need for one.........it would be now. :watching:


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> I believe it was desertman who started the downhill trend with his post:


Wrong again! I only answered this quote from your Norwegian comrade:



> I've read some stuff on this forum that got me thinking "What the f*ck is going on over there", and by over there I mean in the US. What kind of constant threat is haunting you?


My response:



> It's called the "2nd Amendment" and the rest of the bill of rights. The constant threat we have is our own government. If that has to be explained I suggest that you read up on history.


Is it that difficult for you to understand?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Wrong again! I only answered this quote from your Norwegian comrade.
> 
> ...


Yup! That last sentence was somewhat out of place. Not out of character, but unnecessary.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

eriitj:


> Shit you are stupid. Yes, you. Not your country, but you as an individual.


I could respond in kind, but I'll let that comment represent the type of individual that you are.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> eriitj: "Shit you are stupid. Yes, you. Not your country, but you as an individual."
> 
> I could respond in kind, but I'll let that comment represent the type of individual that you are.


And I notice we didn't see any sort of redress to our Noregian friend about his out of place remarks. Again, how we respond says more about us than anyone. Just parting food for thought.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:
Man, I'm so glad we think alike! I've made it my mission in life to fight Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, whatever you want to call it wherever it rears it's ugly head. It will be the death of our "Constitutional Republic". Forever hold our peace. They can call me all the names they want. It just makes me want to fight them even harder. I swear to God I believe their strategy is to divide and conquer within our own ranks by pretending to be one of us. We can not allow ourselves to fall for it. "SailDesign" in one of his posts mentioned that if the government comes to take his guns it is no big deal, he'll just find another hobby. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with ones hobby. This is what we have to deal with. Notice that they have stopped using the phrase "Gun Control" and now use the phrase "Gun Safety". Doesn't sound as intimidating or divisive. However it still means the same thing. They are not fooling anyone, yet they think they are because they think we're too stupid to be able to figure out what they are up to and what their real motives are. I read a good quote today from our local newspaper: "For those with an agenda the truth is an impediment".


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> <snip pat on the back for GCBHM>
> "SailDesign" in one of his posts mentioned that if the government comes to take his guns it is no big deal, he'll just find another hobby. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with ones hobby. This is what we have to deal with.
> <more snip>


I say that because for me, shooting IS a hobby, just like woodworking is. Guns are not my life. I understand your viewpoint is different - apparently you do not return the compliment.

As for gracing me with an Agenda - well, you can think what you will. YOU are the one with the Agenda.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> Man, I'm so glad we think alike! I've made it my mission in life to fight Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, whatever you want to call it wherever it rears it's ugly head. It will be the death of our "Constitutional Republic". Forever hold our peace. They can call me all the names they want. It just makes me want to fight them even harder. I swear to God I believe their strategy is to divide and conquer within our own ranks by pretending to be one of us. We can not allow ourselves to fall for it. "SailDesign" in one of his posts mentioned that if the government comes to take his guns it is no big deal, he'll just find another hobby. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with ones hobby. This is what we have to deal with. Notice that they have stopped using the phrase "Gun Control" and now use the phrase "Gun Safety". Doesn't sound as intimidating or divisive. However it still means the same thing. They are not fooling anyone, yet they think they are because they think we're too stupid to be able to figure out what they are up to and what their real motives are. I read a good quote today from our local newspaper: "For those with an agenda the truth is an impediment".


While we have had some disagreements, it does seem we do think a lot alike. The progressives have been trying to divide and conquer since the beginning of time. Prime example of this is how Alexander Hamilton, upon ratification of the Constitution, immediately went back to his home state of NY and began his campain of "implied powers". However, in order to get the Constitution passed, he, among other progressives, sold it on the basis that the Constitution has specific, limited enumerated powers only. They had an ageda then, and it has only evolved since.

The truth today is that all government is bad for liberty. We have two parties, but they are only wings of the same bird which has become the new political class, and its sole purpose is to control the people. And how? Divide and conquer. They don't come at us straight on. They tried that after Sandy Hook, and it completely backfired on them, so now they are changing tactics. They did the same thing with birth control getting employers to pay for that by changing it from "abortion" to "contraception". Now, today, Obama is selling the drinkers on the fact that "people have done horrible things in the name of Christ too" rather than calling radicalism what it is regardless of its organization. So instead of calling Islamic jihadists radicals, he points a finger at "Christians". He truly thinks he is convincing people, but all he is doing is identifying himself.

I really don't think SailDesign has an agenda here, as it were. But he sure does defend the progressive agenda. ;-)


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

eriitj said:


> Did you consider that my condescending remarks could be a reply to a condescending remark? And how is asking if there really is a point to you hiding guns around your house is necessary "trying to set you straight"? Why is it that when a foreigner criticizes your system you get so defensive?


I'm not sure how I missed this, but I would like to pay you the respect of a reply. I will draw your attention to this statement you made in response to my answer to your initial question. You seemed to respond appropriately at first; however, you finished your response with this statement: "I've read some stuff on this forum that got me thinking "What the f*ck is going on over there", and by over there I mean in the US. What kind of constant threat is haunting you?"

Now, I'm not sure what kind of response you expected to get from making that statement, but try to think about how you would feel if someone from America made the same statement about you and your country. I've traveled to many different countries, and I've lived abroad as well. In all my travels, even to the places with the worst reputations of high-minded, dismissive attitudes toward Americans (like France), I learned a few things.

First, no matter where I went, the locals knew instinctively I was American. I did not have to say a word. Secondly, no matter what their preconceived disposition was toward me, once I approached them with respect, and at least attempting to speak their language, they somehow magically became very hospitable and receptive toward me. Even in Paris, where they are known to loathe "Americans", the hotel staff worked with an obvious contempt toward their barbaric Western guests, but without exception, when I approached them in their native tongue with respect, their entire countenance toward me changed. They were very gracious, polite and even inquisitive. In Paris!!! But, to the other "pushy, obnoxiously demanding" Americans they scoffed, often ignoring them.

Now, consider the fact that you're in our domain here. Do you really think you're going to be well received with statements like the one above? The truth is, by the statement, you admit you have no clue what is going on over here. I would also submit that you have no real understanding of the concept of liberty as well, and we know this. If you truly wanted to discuss things with an intent to understand, rather than condemn with disdain, then you would conduct yourself accordingly. You're a foreigner in a foreign land. Don't be an obnoxious and condescending European, and maybe you'll experience cordial and polite discussion. Just food for thought.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Okay you guys, don't even make me stop this car. I'll turn it right around and there will be no going to DisneyLand. :smt018


----------



## HOPELESS (Sep 1, 2012)

I can't believe this , I will not ask anything again I can get this bull sh-- on the news! I will say the reply about being a grandfather is correct I am the same way, protect what you love. Family and Country


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

HOPELESS said:


> I can't believe this , I will not ask anything again I can get this bull sh-- on the news! I will say the reply about being a grandfather is correct I am the same way, protect what you love. Family and Country


My apologies if I have done anything to offend you. Unfortunately, as you can see, there is an ugly side to all this. The fact is, wrt your original question, external safeties don't make guns any safer than models with no external safeties. This is b/c guns, as they are, are not unsafe. As you have seen here in this thread, the threat is the individual. Anytime you see someone come in with the intent to denounce what we know is a God-given right, you're going to see fireworks. It's just reality.

I hope you have an enjoyable day!


----------



## Hurryin' Hoosier (Jan 8, 2011)

I think that it's time for James Taylor to sing to all of us. :smt083


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Are you kidding? He is our entire foreign policy team. We will just have to sing kumbaya and cross our fingers.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

HOPELESS said:


> I can't believe this , I will not ask anything again I can get this bull sh-- on the news! I will say the reply about being a grandfather is correct I am the same way, protect what you love. Family and Country


You asked a perfectly good question and watched your thread degrade into a cluster f--k. This was not a common experience at all on this site until fairly recently, perhaps within the past six or eight months or so. There are a few people who just seem to enjoy trying to get a rise out of others, regardless of the topic. And this is a shame since some other sites have experienced the same degradation in their discourses. I know of some folks who have just decided that it's not worth their time or effort to put up with this sort of behavior.

There are a lot of good people on this site who are more than willing to offer civil and friendly [written] conversation about whatever the subject might be. Hopefully their numbers will continue to overwhelm the problem children.


----------

