Gun control...

I say again, when WW-II broke out, the English, who had disarmed themselves for ideological reasons, were in an absolute panic. The fear was that Germans could cross the channel with heavy weapons and rifles, and they (the English) would be standing there with, as Santino Corleoni once put it, just their dicks in their hands.

The call went out, all across North America, for rifles to be donated to save England, with posters like this one much in evidence:

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID1417/images/ScreenHunter_02_Dec__02_08_35.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/would-you-send-a-gun-to-defend-a-british-home

Shipload after shipload of American hunting rifles sailed across the Atlantic to save the British from the logical consequences of their own stupidity, all donated by American hunters and other firearm owners, in good faith and at cost to themselves. Nobody was ever compensated for those rifles, many of which were cherished hunting rifles and family heirlooms.

And then, the day WW-II came to an end, the British went straight back to the same stupid ****.

I mean, making a mistake or two in life is one thing but this is way beyond that. That says the whole country (England) basically doesn't even deserve to exist. Anarchy would be better.

1 Reply

The main problem during WW2 was that most of the heavy weaponry was left on the shores of Dunkirk. It was nothing to do with individuals carrying guns. You have considerably more gun related crime in America than we do over here. We don't want your laws. We are a sovereign nation

4 Replies

It takes more strength and personal risk to attack with a tire iron than to simply stand there and press a trigger. With the tire iron you may get a couple, but a gun can bring down a multitude. Gun control is essential, as most police will tell you.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Unfortunately mate I don't think you're going to get it, not with all the rabid gun nuts you've got over there. You have my sympathy.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

We don't want your laws.

What you want and what you need aren't always the same things.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The main problem during WW2 was that most of the heavy weaponry was left on the shores of Dunkirk. It was nothing to do with individuals carrying guns. You have considerably more gun related crime in America than we do over here. We don't want your laws. We are a sovereign nation

We do not impugn English sovereignty.

In WWII, American private citizens did not send u any heavy weaponry,
but we sent u huge numbers of small arms (handguns & shoulder mounted guns)
to fight "on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. . . ".
Most of those Englishmen had the decency to return our property to its owners
after the socialists (the national ones) were defeated.

The NRA aided in the collection of handguns, rifles n shotguns for loan to the English.

U sound ignorant of recent English history.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You take wilful ignorance to new levels. For all your bombast about sending hunting rifles, they didn't make a blind bit of difference, the RAF kept the Luftwaffe from invading so they were never needed. This incident is really a Historical footnote.

I wasn't accusing you of trying to impugn our sovereigny Dave, but you're not the only gun enthusiast on A2K.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You have considerably more gun related crime in America than we do over here.

As if being gun-related made it worse?

izzythepush wrote:

We don't want your laws. We are a sovereign nation

Ah, the irony of ignorance.

"Our" laws????

Sheesh!

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It takes more strength and personal risk to attack with a tire iron than to simply stand there and press a trigger. With the tire iron you may get a couple, but a gun can bring down a multitude.

Most killings are single. Therefore a tire iron would do just fine.

As for spree killings, the killers would be even more lethal if a hypothetical absence of guns forced them to turn to rudimentary bombs.

edgarblythe wrote:

Gun control is essential, as most police will tell you.

They are lying. They are just trying to take our freedom away.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You take wilful ignorance to new levels.
For all your bombast about sending hunting rifles,
they didn't make a blind bit of difference,

After we sent the hardware, we sent some manpower to back it up.

izzythepush wrote:

the RAF kept the Luftwaffe from invading so they were never needed.

Lemme get this straight (wilful ignorance):
u r telling us that the Luftwaffe left u alone
and left London n Coventry intact??????

U sound like u r asserting that the Luftwaffe remained innocent
of invading English air space.

izzythepush wrote:

This incident is really a Historical footnote.

Look, INGRATE, I 'm well aware that the nazis did not mount an infantry invasion of England,
but your leader, Churchill, contemplated the possibility.
WHICH hills and WHICH streets do u imagine
that he was declaiming that u 'd fight in, if there were no invasion???

izzythepush wrote:

I wasn't accusing you of trying to impugn our sovereigny Dave,
but you're not the only gun enthusiast on A2K.

I am confident that no one in A2K wants America to take over England.
We don 't even THINK about it.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Look, INGRATE, I 'm well aware that the nazis did not mount an infantry invasion of England,

What am I supposed to be ungrateful for?

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

I say again, when WW-II broke out, the English, who had disarmed themselves for ideological reasons, were in an absolute panic. The fear was that Germans could cross the channel with heavy weapons and rifles, and they (the English) would be standing there with, as Santino Corleoni once put it, just their dicks in their hands.

The call went out, all across North America, for rifles to be donated to save England, with posters like this one much in evidence:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/would-you-send-a-gun-to-defend-a-british-home

Shipload after shipload of American hunting rifles sailed across the Atlantic to save the British from the logical consequences of their own stupidity, all donated by American hunters and other firearm owners, in good faith and at cost to themselves. Nobody was ever compensated for those rifles, many of which were cherished hunting rifles and family heirlooms.

And then, the day WW-II came to an end, the British went straight back to the same stupid ****.

I mean, making a mistake or two in life is one thing but this is way beyond that. That says the whole country (England) basically doesn't even deserve to exist. Anarchy would be better.

The NRA also assisted in the collection of private handguns and shoulder guns
for English households.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Look, INGRATE, I 'm well aware that the nazis did not mount an infantry invasion of England,

izzythepush wrote:

What am I supposed to be ungrateful for?

Well, replying to your response,
I was focusing upon the subject matter of the FOOTNOTE.
Believe me, if I were so motivated to help the English
by sending a significant portion of my gun collection,
that sacrifice 'd be IMPORTANT to me.
( I did not personally send any guns; others of my acquaintance did.)

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You take wilful ignorance to new levels. For all your bombast about sending hunting rifles, they didn't make a blind bit of difference, the RAF kept the Luftwaffe from invading so they were never needed. This incident is really a Historical footnote. ...

Really? Suppose something like 100,000 German soldiers had picked the darkest and cloudiest night of 1940 to cross the channel in little boats, with rifles of course and possibly grenades and recoilless rifles, and all the English had was what they would have had without the American rifle shipments, i.e. just their dicks in their hands: what do you think the RAF would have been able to do about it?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The main problem during WW2 was that most of the heavy weaponry was left on the shores of Dunkirk.
It was nothing to do with individuals carrying guns.
You have considerably more gun related crime in America than we do over here.
We don't want your laws. We are a sovereign nation

U show antipathy toward "individuals carrying guns".
As I have posted many times,
guns are the means for a victim
to CONTROL a predatory emergency,
so that he or she can survive it, by killing or scaring away the threat.

For instance, Izzy,
consider the case of this unfortunate housewife:

There was a lady in Florida, Susan Gonzalez, who feared n detested guns.
She requested her husband not to have any guns in their house,
especially with their children there. One night, 2 criminals broke down
their front door. They entered her home, shot Mrs. Gonzalez twice,
and shot her husband as he lay harmlessly in his bed. Franticly,
she scrambled to get the OBJECT OF ABHORENCE:
her husband's little 9 shot .22 caliber revolver.

She grabbed it up and killed one of the criminals.
The other fled, after she shot him too. Altho it is possible that the
criminals might have allowed Mrs. Gonzalez’ 5 children to live
(if they did not care that the children'd complain to the police and
testify against them in court) Mrs. G. was not willing to confide
the lives of her children to the discretion of the men who shot
both of their parents.

This attack was STOPPED by the presence of an UNLOCKED gun
in the home. Without it, the murders of the parents and children
probably would have continued until all the children were dead.
That gun was the INSTRUMENT OF LIFE for the Gonzalez family.

After hospitalization, the Gonzalezes recovered from their wounds.
She became a public speaker in support of the right to keep and bear arms,
and she takes her .38 Taurus revolver everywhere with her.

Wise is he who learns from his mistakes, but wiser is he who learns from the mistakes of others.

On reading that, do u wish that u had been able to dissuade
Mrs. G from taking possession of that handgun ?

Woud u have advised her against it,
while she was getting shot 2ice during her misadventure ?

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

There was the Royal Navy. Why don't you talk about what did happen, and not what might have happened?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything, the figures speak for themselves. You're far more likely to suffer a gunshot wound in America than Britain.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

There was the Royal Navy.

Why don't you talk about what did happen,
and not what might have happened?

BECAUSE the reason that we sent u our private guns
was what MIGHT happen, not what actually DID happen after we sent them to u.

See the point ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The point is, that you're using this one incident to argue against gun control, but it's false logic. There's no bunch of Nazis clamouring at the door, and we've got one of the largest armies in Europe.

If you want to talk about whether or not we should be grateful to individual Americans who helped the British war effort in 1940/41 that's one thing, but it's not a valid argument against gun control.

The answer is, yes of course we should be grateful to certain individuals, but that's still got nothing to do with the topic.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything, the figures speak for themselves. You're far more likely to suffer a gunshot wound in America than Britain.

So? I'd be just as distressed if I were stabbed instead of shot.

0 Replies

Gun control...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know