wesw wrote:
gob, apparently American boys will be doing it alone, if you brits have lost your nerve and are scared of guns now.
Apart from the fact I hold a shotgun license, and am not afraid of guns, you're right.
I'd rather be afeared of guns than my own fellow countrymen though.
Oh, and if you're happy to live in what you describe as a third world, violent and dangerous country, you have my blessing to do so, just don't try to claim it's superior in any way.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
the bad guys don t go to "a strong man s house" . I m just saying that we have a right to defend ourselves gob. that right is useless without the means to do so.
crackpot, first you have no right to tell me stop speaking. second, I ve not advocated anything that is anything other than defense of life liberty and our own constitution.
Wes please take this in the kindest possible way but when I'm asking you not to speak on the subject it's in the same manner a parent tells a child not to touch the power tools. Yes we know you want to make something beautiful but you're just going to end up losing fingers.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Well you've already both compared us unfavorably to Mexico and competely overlooked the role the Swiss had In World war 2 and those are just the ones I can think of without reviewing the thread.
You're walking into a kennel filled with starved wolves wearing Lady Gagas meat dress and you think that my questioning your apparel has something to do with your tase in music.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
I never mentioned mexico (except to say that people are leaving there to come here). I never said we were superior. I never compared the US to a third world country. you are mistaken.
perhaps you have mistaken liberty s posts for mine
Last edited by wesw on Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sorry got you confused with liberty. (In my defense hi did answer a question posed to you and you do share a similar "voice". But my mistake all the same
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
wesw wrote:as far as the swiss, there is a gun in every house and quite a few barns with artillery pcs, to this day. they seem fairly civilized.
Not entirely true. While ownership is over 50 percent and experience with firearms is even higher it isn't universal. And another thing to own a gun in Switzerland you must be trained (by the government) in its use and the weapon must be registered.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
wesw wrote:no problem. perhaps I overlooked swiss complicity as well, though I still don t think hitler had a snowballs chance in hell of marching in there....
He didn't have to. They were already friendly and once he secured the rest of Europe the Swiss would have had no choice but to capitulate.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
that s what he thought about England too. those bloody brits gave him hell for a good long time before America came in. I believe Britain s great stand was the key to victory. bravo.
Lord Jim wrote:Wes, if I read many more of your arguments on this, you may succeed in doing what no liberal has ever managed to achieve...
Make me an opponent of The 2nd Amendment....
Keep on writing, wesw; your arguments are specious and frankly ridiculous, but if they help Jim to see the light, then they're not totally useless.
This!
On Switzerland - the Swiss were collaborateurs of the highest order with the Nazis. And it was the economic and banking power of the nstion - not their guns- that kept them from being swallowed by Germany. The Austrians were, eventually, mostly anti-nazi with a strong nationalist bent, and the Germans just walked across the border in the Anschluss. They could have done the exact same thing to Switzerland, but for their banks.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Big RR wrote:I think there are a lot of handguns that do not have safetys--most revolvers as I recall and many (semi) automatics. Usually you can always avoid problems with autos by not chambering a round, and I would think you could do the same with revolvers. My guess is this was probably an automatic with a chambered round as I doubt a 2 year old would have the strength or dexterity to pull a trigger on a revolver (I recall when I was very young I had to use my thumb to pull the trigger on even a toy gun, which would result in shooting myself based on the way I held the gun).
A safety course should be mandated for any gun owner, especially one getting a concealed carry permit, but if this woman had one, it did not appear to be all that good as none of the advice apparently sunk in.
Most semis have safeties. Revolvers not so much. Eather way my question is was the hammer cocked? I find it hard to believe (as you do too) that the kid had the strength to pull hte trigger on a gun with a "noncocked" hammer. When you chamber round on a semi, the hammer is cocked at the same time. I would (and have done so when shooting semi pistols) then ease the hammer down if I was not going to be shooting right away.
Seems to me she chambered a round and did not ease the hammer down. Whether or not the safety was on, a 2 yo can switch the safety off. At that point the trigger does not take much pressure to release the hammer (depending on the gun).
anyway, don t turn the debate to a debate on Switzerland in ww2. I made an error.
back to gun rights....
gob, you never addressed my question about why you feel ok about having your gun, but don t want others to have one.
please explain your logic on that.
