A History Lesson

alberich said:
I'd sign this anytime Jimmy. Good that somebody who can speak English wrote it down :-)
Click to expand...

Gracias, pero si tambien lo quieres ver en espanol, me avisas, porque yo soy bilingue ;)

Translation:

Thanks, but if you would also like to see it in Spanish, just let me know, because I'm bilingual ;)


Just joking around a bit, buddy :)

My ears are a bit less red now................ LOL! ;)
 
I got "Gracias", "espanol", and :yo soy bilingue". My cat's called Morrongo, anyway. Very original name for a cat, I know. :-) Buenas noches, senor.
 
alberich said:
I got "Gracias", "espanol", and :yo soy bilingue". My cat's called Morrongo, anyway. Very original name for a cat, I know. :-) Buenas noches, senor.
Click to expand...

Morrongo! Oh my gawd! I've used that as a slang to describe my private male anatomy!................ LOL! ;)

Buenas noches a ti, senor! :)
 
jefptw said:
I was wondering about that. I didn't think a frog that was thrown into boiling water would be jumping ANYWHERE, ANYMORE, EVER AGAIN. ...... That is unless he is somehow related to that bear huntin' puddytat. :D

James
Click to expand...

A scientist takes a frog and tells it to jump . No problem . He cuts off one of its legs and tells it to jump . Of course mr. froggy is jumping like mad trying to get away from dufus with the knife . Scientist cuts off leg two and three with similar results . Scientist cuts off the fourth leg and tells frog to jump . Nothing . Scientist screams at top of lungs for the frog to jump . Nothing happening . The scientists conclusion is that frogs with no legs are deaf .
 
Kevin the grey said:
A scientist takes a frog and tells it to jump . No problem . He cuts off one of its legs and tells it to jump . Of course mr. froggy is jumping like mad trying to get away from dufus with the knife . Scientist cuts off leg two and three with similar results . Scientist cuts off the fourth leg and tells frog to jump . Nothing . Scientist screams at top of lungs for the frog to jump . Nothing happening . The scientists conclusion is that frogs with no legs are deaf .
Click to expand...


Hmmm, frog legs,................. some say they taste like chicken.......... LOL! ;)
 
Jimmy,

The Second Amendment is the closest thing I have to a litmus test when regarding someone. I don't damn anyone who fails it, and I don't accept into my heart all those who pass, but it is a measure.


My belief in the Second Amendment comes from the heart.



munk
 
I sure didn't expect so many comments.

I am armed, but not to fight police. I can't win against police. I have no gripe with them.

I do hope I have a chance of not becoming a victim, though.

I collect firearms because I like them, enjoy shooting them and they are a link to history. Not to cause any trouble anywhere with anyone.

I feel if crowds riot, loot, burn, destroy and break the law they deserve what they get. Most of the time the law should come down on them much harsher than is currently done. I would not riot and can't condone it in others.

Non-lethal weapons are actually less lethal. When I trained for 20 years I was taught not to strike a blow to the head with baton, blackjack, flashlight, etc. It would kill. Yet in the middle of a melee you don't always land blows where you intended to.

History has shown that the most important step to a totalitarian or dictatorship type government is to disarm the civilians. I think that would be tough to do in this country.

Each country has to decide what is best for it. Most of us are distressed with the thought of giving up knives or guns and can't imagine living like that.

I think we should be grateful for the weapons rights we have in this country. There is a lot wrong here for sure, but it still the best country in the world. Ask 12 million illegals who got in here.

That's enough I's.
 
alberich said:
They won't understand. People will never believe that the stuff from news can happen to them.
People are often scared of weapons and they don't understand that weapon can mean a safety, not a menace. Many never experienced the fact that government can mean an enemy and police an oppresive force rather than a protection.
Click to expand...

Alberich,

I'm glad someone from your part of the world understands what we(in the U.S.) are saying. I visited Prague in 2001 about 2 weeks before 9-11 happened in the U.S. From what we were told by our guide, the Czechs put up one helluva fight in their fight for independence in the 1950's, though eventually losing after the Soviets coerced their other Soviet bloc allies to help put down the rebellion. How did the Czechs do it? They had the will and the means to fight!
 
Nordic Viking said:
hdwrlover,

Your link describes civilians murdered in a demilitarised zone. Sutcliffe's post contends that the UN took away these people's weapons, so they couldn't fight and thus were massacred. Two totally unrelated facts, IMO.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/11/16/world/main70520.shtml
Yes, I just posted one link but I said more is easily found. Do you think the U.N. allowed weapons in the demilitarized zone? Of course not. So what happened to those weapons? DUH - they took them away and "promised" those people that they would be protected. The result was a cruel reality. Unrelated - hardly.

By the way, are there Swedish troops in Bosnia?
 
hdwrlover said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/11/16/world/main70520.shtml
Yes, I just posted one link but I said more is easily found. Do you think the U.N. allowed weapons in the demilitarized zone? Of course not. So what happened to those weapons? DUH - they took them away and "promised" those people that they would be protected. The result was a cruel reality. Unrelated - hardly.
Click to expand...
Yes, this was a clear UN failure to protect innocent people. Was this the only UN demilitarised zone to be overrun or is this common practice for UN demilitarised zones in the Balkans?

When the US invaded Iraq, did the US Army not find that nearly every household had access to guns and ammunition. How did this help them when it was woodchipper time?

hdwrlover said:
By the way, are there Swedish troops in Bosnia?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the relevance of the question.
 
hdwrlover said:
From what we were told by our guide, the Czechs put up one helluva fight in their fight for independence in the 1950's, though eventually losing after the Soviets coerced their other Soviet bloc allies to help put down the rebellion. How did the Czechs do it? They had the will and the means to fight!
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I understand but shortly:

1) 1945 Red Army defeated last nazi soldiers in Prague. Patton who was in Pilsen already was ready to go and take Prague first, but he had commands not to, because Czechoslovakia was planned for the Red zone after war.

2) 1946 first after war elections, supervised by Russians, Communist party won. In 1948 they installed themselves as a single power.

3) fifties - red terror, infighting in Communist party. The hardcore bolsheviks fortified their positions. Executions of all opponents, both idealistic communists and former right side politicians. Several people tried to fight, some blasted their way out of the country, eventually shooting those who tried to stop them.

4) 1968 an attempt to localy reform communist party. Reform was stopped violently by a Warsaw pact invasion. Some Czech soldiers tried to resist, but they were defeated. Russian tanks in Prague. From this time on, Red army was permanently installed in Czechoslovakia.

5) seventies - "normalization", brainwashing, secret police terror, etc.

6) 1989 as a result of lost Cold war, Red block is in general chaos and every satelite who can is trying to split and free itself. We managed as well.

So your guide was likely talking about the 1968.
 
alberich said:
I'm not quite sure I understand but shortly:

1) 1945 Red Army defeated last nazi soldiers in Prague. Patton who was in Pilsen already was ready to go and take Prague first, but he had commands not to, because Czechoslovakia was planned for the Red zone after war.

2) 1946 first after war elections, supervised by Russians, Communist party won. In 1948 they installed themselves as a single power.

3) fifties - red terror, infighting in Communist party. The hardcore bolsheviks fortified their positions. Executions of all opponents, both idealistic communists and former right side politicians. Several people tried to fight, some blasted their way out of the country, eventually shooting those who tried to stop them.

4) 1968 an attempt to localy reform communist party. Reform was stopped violently by a Warsaw pact invasion. Some Czech soldiers tried to resist, but they were defeated. Russian tanks in Prague. From this time on, Red army was permanently installed in Czechoslovakia.

5) seventies - "normalization", brainwashing, secret police terror, etc.

6) 1989 as a result of lost Cold war, Red block is in general chaos and every satelite who can is trying to split and free itself. We managed as well.

So your guide was likely talking about the 1968.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. It must have been beyond terrible for your citizens to live under Soviet rule.
 
Steve Poll said:
I agree with you. It must have been beyond terrible for your citizens to live under Soviet rule.
Click to expand...

It's over, but let's remember what the commies did everywhere (and still do) and learn from the lesson.
 
Nordic Viking said:
And you laugh at Japanese propaganda :D

Those statistics were pulled straight out of somebodies bum and is just touchy feely BS.

Maybe China, Cambodia, Guatamala etc. were crapholes to start with, and they would have killed each other anyway. As seen in Rwanda, you don't need guns to kill a whole lot of people, in fact had they had more guns they probably would have killed more people.

In WW1 and WW2 over 36 million soldiers were killed and they all had guns.
Click to expand...


Steve,

NV has a point.

While the statistics quoted in your letter may be right, the inference has a logical fallacy.Comparability of examples quoted is spurious:

Except for Australia, all the other were at the times totalitarian regimes. the sample suffers from comprehensiveness: why are Canada [a prime mover in strict Gun control] as well as the UK and Iraq under Saddam [no gun control and atrocities on Kurds and others] ignored?

In brief, the statement makes a classical mistake in statistical inference: correlation does not imply causation. A spurious correlation reporting would only make any self-respecting press cringe from reporting such a hysterical lesson

But I am keeping my guns!
 
Except for Australia, all the other were at the times totalitarian regimes.
the sample suffers from comprehensiveness: why are Canada [a prime mover in strict Gun control] as well as the UK and Iraq under Saddam [no gun control and atrocities on Kurds and others] are ignored?


But I am keeping my guns![/QUOTE]

Greetings from the great white north . Bill I think the issue is caused by people no longer aware of where their food comes from , who has to do what to protect them and city life in general . I know this is old . People are used to meat in bloodless plastic packages Our peace officers and soldiers are isolated from us by ignorance . Supposed protection is only a phone call to these same police . People feel justified in their position that there is no need for firearms . As the strictest of the gun control laws is being abolished in Canada I think there is the famous growing realisation that not everything is as well as it could be .
 
I used to live in the Northeast (New Jersey just outside of NYC). New York has a long an unfortunate history with firearms prohibition. At the time, Mayor Dinkins was busy denying any honest citizen he could the right to carry a firearm. Meanwhile, people were locked in their own houses affraid to go out because the bad guys were taking target practice up on the roofs of the buildings. In 1990, the big news was the number of babies and other innocents being shot by rival gangs who couldn't seem to hit each other, but peppered the neighborhood with stray bullets.

The politicians answer.... was to blame states as far away as Virginia for having liberal gun laws where the drug dealers could buy and distribute guns as well as drugs.
 
Bill,

I believe even the Australian statistics are propaganda i.e.one year 4 people could have been murdered and the next year 16 murdered and the next year 12 murdered. That's an increase of 300% in year one, hardly the holocaust or genocide the author is trying to conjure images of.


IMO, the key to freedom is education and an accountable government.
 
Nordic Viking said:
Bill,

I believe even the Australian statistics are propaganda i.e.one year 4 people could have been murdered and the next year 16 murdered and the next year 12 murdered. That's an increase of 300% in year one, hardly the holocaust or genocide the author is trying to conjure images of.


IMO, the key to freedom is education and an accountable government.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, do you have against weapons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top