why the left hates guns

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

wasn't aware the d day invasion took place that year? I assume that is what you were referring to with amphibious vessels and crossing the channe.

i was talking about amphibious vessels, but they woulda been going from france to britain....

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

i was talking about amphibious vessels, but they woulda been going from france to britain....

go on, tell me specifically what you are referring to and its role in a potential invasion of Britain.....or use a jpeg, if one is available

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

go on, tell me specifically what you are referring to and its role in a potential invasion of Britain.....or use a jpeg, if one is available

i'm not even gonna bother.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

quelle surprise

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Isnt it bath night?

[slim 1,525]

Somalia was at war with the US was it.

For someone so well informed of modern army capabilities, it's weird that this would've slipped your mind. I'm guessing like most other things.... you had no clue.

Therefore, a legitimate question is, how effective is any civilian or their firearm at defending against a WMD attack.

Well, so far we've had ZERO.

ZERO.

Care to argue with that?

The whole keep the guvmint in check is probbaly the dumbest ####### I have ever heard from anyone in a civilized country.

I wouldn't expect you -as an Aussie - to understand it. However, the fact that you own a gun (or two) at least lets me know that you're not just a hypocrite, you're a practical hypocrite and as much as you'd like to deny it on the outside, that freedom-loving American deep inside you understands it.

what chance do Garys with their guns have against modern armies?

Garys with their guns have defeated every modern army they've ever faced on the battle field. Maybe not Gary personally, but Gary - through supporting his government - has produced the American military which whoops everyone's @$$ it encounters.

Hmmmm. This sounds a little off to me with the bits I do know about armament manufacture in Britain during the Second World War

Simple numbers. Think of the manufacturing base of GB during the war. Think of Americas. Any further questions?

pro-gun restriction comments are based on logic and deductive reasoning.

Not actual facts.

Yes, by May 1941 Britain was receiving war materials through the lend lease act, but the threat of a nazi invasion was over by then.

So had we stayed out of it completely you guys would've been OK?

go on, tell me specifically what you are referring to and its role in a potential invasion of Britain.....or use a jpeg, if one is available

In your haste to disagree with charles! you missed his point of actually agreeing with you that it would've been the nazis who would've had a hard time crossing the channel and invading GB.

I agree. However, I'm also firmly in the camp of Hitler "swinging back by" once he was done with the rest of Europe. He didn't get that opportunity because Zhukov and the boys were kicking in his front door while Patton and 'nem tapped on the back window. Had none of that happened... your aunty may've been spelling color and neighbor without the letter u in it because she would've had to leave the island.

Once again, I'm speculating. Take that however you will. Not saying we did all the heavy lifting... just saying to deny we had a little something to do with it is also incorrect. The British fought (and always have fought) very bravely - even old aunty and the rest of the civilians - but they had some help from my aunt back here in the sewing machine shop that was converted into making bombs.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I have my reply finally about arms and the man I sought earlier:

OK: If you want me to check the facts of the small arms supply, it'll take a few days. However, I can approach the question of the invasion of Britain: It's 2am right now, so feel free to re-write this to make sense or clean it up. There are also broader questions, such as the insane suggestion that the Germans stayed out of Switzerland because of an armed population. REALLY? So four thousand farmers with fecking rifles stopped the Wermacht from eating holey cheese? Please. So here we go:

To suggest that an armed population was a determining factor in German invasion plans for the UK flies in the face of the most basic evidence. First, it presupposes that no determined effort was made to invade: not so. The Battle of Britain comprised an organized and concerted effort to break the air defenses of Britain. Invasion was simply unthinkable without complete air superiority, which the Luftwaffe failed to achieve. An armed civilian population had no impact in deterring an attempt at invasion, because an invasion was indeed attempted.

Nor can an armed population be said to have had any significance in fighting this invasion, or in its outcome. The early stages of the invasion were the attempt to secure command of the skies prior to a sea-borne campaign. The failure of the first stage of the assault and therefore of the invasion of Britain was achieved solely through air power and ground artillery in combination with the sea defences of the Royal Navy.

The idea of an invasion necessarily consisting of armies battling through the cities and countryside is a total fallacy. A modern invasion campaign - such as the attempted invasion of the UK - does not begin with soldiers jumping out of landing craft, but with a string of actions which can last days, weeks or even months. The Battle of Britain was the first and only battle in the German invasion campaign, and the invasion was stalled by consistent failure of German Air Command to break British air defenses. Whether the USA had supplied four guns or four million for the civilian population of the United Kingdom, the outcome of the German invasion would not have been altered in the slightest. The invasion was started in the air and it failed in the air, and the Nazi war effort was neither deterred nor foiled by an armed population.

As to the question of supply, the role of the USA in supplying the fighting forces used in the Battle of Britain was infinitesimal. Almost every combat aircraft used by the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain was built in British factories: the same was true of artillery and artillery ammunition. The re-supply effort was also borne almost completely by British industry. If the role of the USA in supplying the British war effort is of interest, I can suggest some basic reading.

The idea of invasion being boats and armies is old fashioned.

There is no cause and effect.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So had we stayed out of it completely you guys would've been OK?

who knows? No one in Britain doesn't appreciate the role the US played during the war; eyes start to roll to the back of their heads when people start with the "Americans saving Auntie from the Jerry." When it really mattered (you can speculate what "might" have happened) Britain was up against the wall under real threat of invasion, exactly 8 Americans were involved (far more Poles, Czechs, Kiwis)and American money was yet to flow to supply Allied troops.

If Hitler didn't have the folly to invade Russia it more likely would have been a different story. But he did, so....

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

In your haste to disagree with charles! you missed his point of actually agreeing with you that it would've been the nazis who would've had a hard time crossing the channel and invading GB.

They would have done it on Dukws supplied by Americans?

Also, with regards to guns in Britain - I don't think you will speak to too many civilians who recall life in wartime Britain being one where they were heavily armed - Churchill did not believe the Women's Land army should be allowed to fire weapons, and assault rifles were banned for civilian use by the Firearms act passed just before the war.

When the US was worried that civilians took arms and fighting our troops (Japan) they decided to use a nuclear bomb instead of a land invasion.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Trompe le Monde

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

They would have done it on Dukws supplied by Americans?

unlikely, the vikings did pretty good invading england without them.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

unlikely, the vikings did pretty good invading england without them.

thank you for your clever contribution Charles

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

thank you for your clever contribution Charles

thank you for bringing your hate to this thread.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

For someone so well informed of modern army capabilities, it's weird that this would've slipped your mind. I'm guessing like most other things.... you had no clue.

Well, so far we've had ZERO.

ZERO.

Care to argue with that?

I wouldn't expect you -as an Aussie - to understand it. However, the fact that you own a gun (or two) at least lets me know that you're not just a hypocrite, you're a practical hypocrite and as much as you'd like to deny it on the outside, that freedom-loving American deep inside you understands it.

Garys with their guns have defeated every modern army they've ever faced on the battle field. Maybe not Gary personally, but Gary - through supporting his government - has produced the American military which whoops everyone's @$$ it encounters.

Simple numbers. Think of the manufacturing base of GB during the war. Think of Americas. Any further questions?

Not actual facts.

So had we stayed out of it completely you guys would've been OK?

In your haste to disagree with charles! you missed his point of actually agreeing with you that it would've been the nazis who would've had a hard time crossing the channel and invading GB.

I agree. However, I'm also firmly in the camp of Hitler "swinging back by" once he was done with the rest of Europe. He didn't get that opportunity because Zhukov and the boys were kicking in his front door while Patton and 'nem tapped on the back window. Had none of that happened... your aunty may've been spelling color and neighbor without the letter u in it because she would've had to leave the island.

Once again, I'm speculating. Take that however you will. Not saying we did all the heavy lifting... just saying to deny we had a little something to do with it is also incorrect. The British fought (and always have fought) very bravely - even old aunty and the rest of the civilians - but they had some help from my aunt back here in the sewing machine shop that was converted into making bombs.

Yeah, that was ME personally! Didn;t you see the film?

So how come Britian begs the US for GUNS when they are threatened with invasion? Who did they give them to? Boys? Girls? Old men? Anyone that could hold one? Use them for paperweights? Oh, and who made the rifle that Vasily Zeitzev used to cap off a few hundred facists? Westinghouse...in New Jersey! Where did nearly all the P-39 Airocobras go to that rolled off the line in Ft. Worth, TX? The Soviet Union! The british bought tons of our Thompson submachine guns and were the FIRST national military to adopt them as standard...hence the name "Tommy gun". NO it was NOT because the inventors name was "thompson"

We turned our factories making car headlights, sewing machines, juke boxes, postage meters and car bodies into weapons factories to give guns to the Brits. Most of them not nearly as good as the rifles we have today. Canada did the same. Ingliss, in Montreal, made the Brits their standard P-35 browning pistols, Ross, in Ontario made Enfield rifles, and buttloads full of Sten submachine guns. They also made jeeps and Sherman tanks at factories formerly used for car making. Need I even mention DeHavilland's contributions? S&W in Springfield, MA turned out millions of "substitute" model 10 revolvers chambered for the British .380/200 cartridge. Colt jumped in on that market also. "Enfield" Mk IV rifles were made in Maine, PA, NJ, NY and even in peaceful Vermont at what is now the General Dymanics mini-gun factory in Burlington. One has to be an ostrich with his head firmly planted up his @ss to not see that when one country is threatened by another with GUNS the answer is MORE GUNS. Please stop trying to insinuate that governments are not afraid of people with firearms (they SHOULD be) and name me ONE dictatorship that allows free ownership of firearms...

Please. name ONE.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They would have done it on Dukws supplied by Americans?

Also, with regards to guns in Britain - I don't think you will speak to too many civilians who recall life in wartime Britain being one where they were heavily armed - Churchill did not believe the Women's Land army should be allowed to fire weapons, and assault rifles were banned for civilian use by the Firearms act passed just before the war.

When the US was worried that civilians took arms and fighting our troops (Japan) they decided to use a nuclear bomb instead of a land invasion.

WOW! The British are just a whole lot smarter than I gave them credit for! They banned a type of firearm before it existed!

The well regarded FIRST "assault rifle" was the German Stg 44. Named that becauwse it was introduced in 1944. How would it have been banned before it was invented?

The US was, and is, indeed afraid of civilians with arms. We know better. Anyone with a brain cell fears someone defending their family with a firearm, or even a sharp bamboo stick. so we used the atomic bomb to reduce OUR casualties.

Are you saying the US government would use the atomic bomb against its own population? Do you see how quickly this gets ridiculous?

If you cannot argue the subject of firearms accurately (and you can't, because you lose) then just go away quietly.

You are re-inforcing OUR position when you point out how fearful our military was of geisha girls with bamboo sticks. You sound ridiculous when you suggest a country outlaws things that do not exist, and you clearly have little knowledge of history.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

thank you for bringing your hate to this thread.

what hate?