Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 144
  1.    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I think the bad view of "socialist" states you have stems mostly from ignorance about life there. You seem to think life in the conservative US is the coolest thing on earth, ignoring the fact that (as discussed before) the US have the highest homicide, assault, rape, divorce, traffic death rate of the Western world, the highest health costs, but still a low life expectancy, a high infant death rate when compared to other devoloped countries, etc. (always per capita). I am afraid quite a few of those factors can be attributed to many European countries (and also e.g. Canada) being more "socialist". Switzerland never had a socialist/left majority, but still the left has influence (about 40%), which I do not consider a bad thing altogether.

    You specifically mention how difficult it is to own a gun Great Britain, apparently a sign of bad socialist influence? However, what do you think, why do the US have about 4 or 5 times the homicide rate of Great Britain?
    How do you attribute the lower rates of the pathologies you select to socialism? Do you think MAYBE that the homogenous nature of Swiss society has something to do with it? What is the annual growth of the Swiss GDP? How many new drugs were pioneered in Switzerland in the last five years? Which Swiss software product has made significant penetration into the global market? What is the home ownership rate in Switzerland?

    European nations have the advantage of not having to face an unchecked flow of illegal immigration. The "per capita" figures you cite do not take that into account, along with the self-inflicted wounds of Johnson's "Great Society", where our attempt at socialism destroyed the minority inner city family and created Lord of the Flies subsocieties.

    It is not difficult to own a gun in Great Britain...it is virtually impossible. The incidence of street crime and home invasion robberies is sky rocketing to a higher level than we have here. And if gun ownership causes crime, why aren't the Swiss machinegunning each other with their government issued assault rifles? I'll also add this. A man with a gun it a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.

    How far as Switzerland gone down the EU path? Not very far, apparently. It'll be interesting to see how the famed Swiss neutrality holds up when that happens and your soverinty is assaulted.
  2. hsk
    hsk is offline
    hsk's Avatar
    Posts
    262 Posts
    Global Posts
    284 Global Posts
    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    A man with a gun it a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
    Oh. I didn't know that - I always thought a man with a monarch was a subject, with or without a gun.
    PS I'm curious, does your username refer to a significant event in 1911? Breakup of Standard Oil? Chinese revolution? Something else, or not the year at all?
  3.    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by hsk
    Oh. I didn't know that - I always thought a man with a monarch was a subject, with or without a gun.
    PS I'm curious, does your username refer to a significant event in 1911? Breakup of Standard Oil? Chinese revolution? Something else, or not the year at all?
    History has shown, conclusively, that an unarmed populace is subject to the tyrannical government. An armed citizenry acts as the ultimate check and balance, and an indicator of the health of a country. In short, fear the government that fears your gun.

    In 1911 the U.S. military adopted the type of pistol I carry. The design is nearly 100 years old and it is still the standard by which fighting handguns are judged.
  4.    #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Perhaps so but that doesn't make it a "commie rag," nor does it make it bad (keep in mind that what irks you about the NYT and LAT is that both newspapers do not represent your opinion). As I have mentioned, I read the WSJ despite its conservative, pro-Bush agenda. I think it is refreshing to read a variety of opinions and, after-all, the NYT isn't going to change your mind while the WSJ isn't going to change mine.
    What "irks" me about the NYT, the LAT and the WaPo is the way they invariably skew to the left what is supposed to be factual news reporting in order to influence electronic media coverage. That has set the pace and tone of the political debate in this country for almost two generations. Those days are coming to an end, which is why the Democrats are such a minority in government right now.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    History has shown, conclusively, that an unarmed populace is subject to the tyrannical government. An armed citizenry acts as the ultimate check and balance, and an indicator of the health of a country. In short, fear the government that fears your gun.
    Agreed, but that doesnt mean I support the right for everyone to have a gun (neither do you I assume).

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    In 1911 the U.S. military adopted the type of pistol I carry. The design is nearly 100 years old and it is still the standard by which fighting handguns are judged.
    Only a NRA member or gun lover (not necessarily both) would know what your username meant. BTW-springfield armory, colt, s&w, etc...the list goes on forever who make the .45...not to go off topic but what is your favorite? [Is it safe for me to assume that you hate glocks ]
  6.    #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Agreed, but that doesnt mean I support the right for everyone to have a gun (neither do you I assume).

    Only a NRA member or gun lover (not necessarily both) would know what your username meant. BTW-springfield armory, colt, s&w, etc...the list goes on forever who make the .45...not to go off topic but what is your favorite? [Is it safe for me to assume that you hate glocks ]
    Your assumption is correct.

    I am currently carrying a S&W 1911Sc. I really appreciate the alloy frame and the reliability has been excellent. I have a hand built Colt that I carried for many years that provided excellent service as well.

    Glocks are great utilitarian pieces of equipment, but they have no soul.
  7. hsk
    hsk is offline
    hsk's Avatar
    Posts
    262 Posts
    Global Posts
    284 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I am currently carrying a S&W 1911Sc. I really appreciate the alloy frame and the reliability has been excellent.
    How often have you had to rely on it?
  8.    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by hsk
    How often have you had to rely on it?
    Every day.
  9. #109  
    1911 - your conservative with your guns too! :-) I have a s&w 4006. Its sweet and dead on accurate. Have you modified your .45? (Seems like everyone I know that has one does-'old schoolers' :-)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10.    #110  
    The 4006 is the service pistol of the CHP...or at least it was ten years ago or so.

    I've added Heinie sights and a few other amenities, but the gun is largely stock. 3000 rounds with only few magazine related malfunctions. I'm just now getting where I can hit reflexively with it...it presents much differently than my other .45's.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    1911 - your conservative with your guns too! :-) I have a s&w 4006. Its sweet and dead on accurate. Have you modified your .45? (Seems like everyone I know that has one does-'old schoolers' :-)
    I have a modified P12 (2 actually) She is, if I dare say, every bit as precious as my Treo
  12. #112  
    I didn't mean to thread jack with 'gun talk'...please continue on discussing how the LAT is liberal and not presenting the whole story (like every other paper does ;-)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #113  
    I have a Super Soaker

    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #114  
    Special thanks to Ann Coulter - "Liberals have been completely intellectually vanquished. Actually, they lost the war of ideas long ago. It's just that now their defeat is so obvious, even they've noticed. As new DNC Chairman Howard Dean might say, it's all over but the screaming.

    In an editorial last week, The New York Times gave President Bush credit for democracy sweeping through the Middle East or, as the Times put it, "a year of heartening surprises." Yes, the Middle East's current democratization would come as quite a surprise to anyone who puts his hands over his ears and hums during the president's speeches.

    Rolling Stone magazine is making fun of "moveon.org" for having no contact with normal Americans. Their Bush-hating cause has become so hopeless that moveon.org is on the verge of actually moving on.

    Marking the first time Walter Cronkite and I have agreed on anything, Cronkite is ridiculing Dan Rather, saying he should have retired a long time ago.

    No one, not even Chris Matthews, is defending the Italian Communist who claims American forces intentionally shot at her in Iraq. (But to be fair, Keith Oberman has been on vacation this week.) She may have lost some credibility when she backed her claim that Americans were targeting her by quoting her kidnappers. She said her kidnappers had warned her to stay away from the Americans because they would only hurt her. And then my ****** said, "Whatever you do, don't cry out for the police! They won't help you!"
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #115  


    And were sure you believe this guy.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels


    And were sure you believe this guy.
    Too funny!!
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    How do you attribute the lower rates of the pathologies you select to socialism?
    Sorry I missed your reply. I still do not want to risk you accusing me of not answering questions, so here I come:

    There is the sort of "socialist" idea of collective health insurance vs. the "conservative" view that each individual always has to be responsible on his own, and bad luck if he doesn't or can't, then maybe there is charity or else... You will not find people without health insurance in Western Europe. This makes sure people go to the doctor when they should, not when it is too late, like many in the US.

    That is why our life expectancy is quite a bit higher and our infant mortality rate is much lower. Keep in mind: the US STILL have the highest per capita health costs of the world, so some rich seem to spend a lot on health, why else could you spend so much money with such little benefit on the average health situation?
    Do you think MAYBE that the homogenous nature of Swiss society has something to do with it? European nations have the advantage of not having to face an unchecked flow of illegal immigration.
    You seem to have missed an important point: Europe is a very multicultural place, too, and yes, we do enjoy a lot of illegal immigration. Keep in mind that you have basically only the border to Mexico (plus Canada if you insist), while Europe borders (more or less) Africa, the Middle East and the former USSR. 20% the Swiss population have a foreign citizenship, many more foreigners have acquired Swiss citizenship (e.g. my wife), so no way we are "homogenous".
    It is not difficult to own a gun in Great Britain...it is virtually impossible. The incidence of street crime and home invasion robberies is sky rocketing to a higher level than we have here.
    Wrong, too. E.g. assault is higher in the US when compared to the UK. Indeed burglary is higher in Great Britain when compared to the US, but still, I prefer burglary to murder or assault.

    In New York, a relatively safe city in the US, homicide rate is 6.9 per 100'000 people, in London, just as much a multicultural metropolitan melting pot as New York, it is 2.4!! (Source). What's your explanation again?

    Also keep in mind that the number of people in prison is outrageous in the US: In other developed countries (like France, Italy, Germany) it is in the range of 100 per 100'000 inhabitants, in the US it is more than 700 per 100'000 inhabitants, more than 7 times higher! (Source)
    And if gun ownership causes crime, why aren't the Swiss machinegunning each other with their government issued assault rifles?
    One important reason is that you cannot conceal an assault rifle and carry it with you all day long, but you probably knew that already.
    I'll also add this. A man with a gun it a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
    That's the weirdest part of all. You suggest that you need a gun so that you can protect yourself from your government, or fight against it if need be? Although many Swiss including myself have or had an assault rifle at home, NOBODY would have thought of using it to prove that we are citizens, not subjects, and to be able to fight the government. We live in a democracy, you know.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18.    #118  
    CLUULP: "That is why our life expectancy is quite a bit higher and our infant mortality rate is much lower. Keep in mind: the US STILL have the highest per capita health costs of the world, so some rich seem to spend a lot on health, why else could you spend so much money with such little benefit on the average health situation?"

    Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with lifestyle choices amongst your population of a whopping 7.5 million people, less than that of NYC. As far as the Swiss infant mortality rate, that's easy to keep that low when your death rate exceeds your birth rate. You guys need to do less yodeling and more baby making.

    As far as the cost of health care in the US, how much of that do you think is used to fund the R&D for our drug companies and medical industry? Settle lawsuits, frivolous and otherwise? Healthcare for the indigent?

    Cullup: "Wrong, too. E.g. assault is higher in the US when compared to the UK. Indeed burglary is higher in Great Britain when compared to the US, but still, I prefer burglary to murder or assault.

    In New York, a relatively safe city in the US, homicide rate is 6.9 per 100'000 people, in London, just as much a multicultural metropolitan melting pot as New York, it is 2.4!! (Source). What's your explanation again?

    Also keep in mind that the number of people in prison is outrageous in the US: In other developed countries (like France, Italy, Germany) it is in the range of 100 per 100'000 inhabitants, in the US it is more than 700 per 100'000 inhabitants, more than 7 times higher! (Source)

    1911sforever:

    Dramatic Increase in Robberies and Other Crime

    And yet, crime has steadily risen in Britain in the last several years. The U.S. Department of Justice says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States. Although the U.S. remains ahead of Britain in rates of murder and rape, the gap is rapidly narrowing.

    And while robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales, they fell 28 percent in the United States. Likewise, assaults increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States. And while motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England, it remained the same in America.

    To make matters worse for England – and this is also true for Canada – in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not in to avoid being shot at by the intended victim."

    http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335

    As an aside, our crime rate is going down BECAUSE we've put so many people in the slammer.

    1911sforever: "And if gun ownership causes crime, why aren't the Swiss machinegunning each other with their government issued assault rifles?"

    Clulup: One important reason is that you cannot conceal an assault rifle and carry it with you all day long, but you probably knew that already."

    1911sforever: You deliberately evade the point...the presence of guns does not cause violence. Lack of respect for the life and property of others causes crime. We have manufactured and are importing an abundance of people that do not have that respect.

    1911sforever:
    I'll also add this. A man with a gun it a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject."

    Clulup: "That's the weirdest part of all. You suggest that you need a gun so that you can protect yourself from your government, or fight against it if need be? Although many Swiss including myself have or had an assault rifle at home, NOBODY would have thought of using it to prove that we are citizens, not subjects, and to be able to fight the government. We live in a democracy, you know."

    And here we have the major difference between the Swiss experience and the American experience. In America, and armed citizenry serves to support the state, and act as the ultimate check and balance in the event the government acts beyond its legitimate interests. And if your government started putting people into boxcars and shipping them to camps, you wouldn't fight? Or would you just be neutral?

    And about that famous Swiss neutrality, my eyes were REALLY opened yesterday when I was in the hospital watching the History Channel. I had no idea that so many melted down gold teeth, yanked from the bodies of Jews that were killed in the camps, found their was to Switzerland. And I didn't know that Swiss industry was supplying the Nazi war machine with so much material! I did know that the Swiss Air Force shot down our aircraft that strayed over Swiss airspace after striking Germany...I didn't know our airmen were brutalized. I didn't know that Switzerland closed its borders to fleeing Jews, either. I guess that was being neutral.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with lifestyle choices amongst your population of a whopping 7.5 million people, less than that of NYC. As far as the Swiss infant mortality rate, that's easy to keep that low when your death rate exceeds your birth rate. You guys need to do less yodeling and more baby making.
    Lifestyle choices? If it is that, what causes Americans to chose such unhealth lifestyles, leading to the highest health costs and at the same time low life expectancy?

    You got the meaning of infant mortality rate wrong: it simply means how many babies in, say, 100'000 babies die. That number is about 50% higher in the US when compared to countries like France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland. Lifestyle choices, too?
    As far as the cost of health care in the US, how much of that do you think is used to fund the R&D for our drug companies and medical industry? Settle lawsuits, frivolous and otherwise? Healthcare for the indigent?
    What do you mean by "our/your" drug companies? Do you think all the things you mentioned are different in other places, that the price of "our" medication does not include R&D? That we do not have healthcare for the indigent? More than you, I am quite sure, since here everybody has health insurance, not only the rich. Guess who pays healthcare for the poor? Granted, we do not have such a bad lawsuit situation, but that is up to the people you vote for to change, no?

    1911sforever:
    I'll also add this. A man with a gun it a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject."

    Clulup: "That's the weirdest part of all. You suggest that you need a gun so that you can protect yourself from your government, or fight against it if need be? Although many Swiss including myself have or had an assault rifle at home, NOBODY would have thought of using it to prove that we are citizens, not subjects, and to be able to fight the government. We live in a democracy, you know."

    And here we have the major difference between the Swiss experience and the American experience. In America, and armed citizenry serves to support the state, and act as the ultimate check and balance in the event the government acts beyond its legitimate interests.
    I am not sure you realize what you just wrote: an armed citizenry serves as the ultimate check and balance in the event the government acts beyond its legitimate interest? That's most likely what Timothy McVeigh thought, too, only that he and his friends didn't use a gun but a bomb in Oklahoma... So your armed citizenry is in charge of keeping the democratic government in check - that's beyond weird. As soon as enough of some armed guys think "the government acts beyond its legitimate interest", you start setting things straight with your guns. Sorry, but in a democracy, that is sick.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    And about that famous Swiss neutrality, my eyes were REALLY opened yesterday when I was in the hospital watching the History Channel. I had no idea that so many melted down gold teeth, yanked from the bodies of Jews that were killed in the camps, found their was to Switzerland. ...
    You know, this is really interesting. Whenever somebody isn't able to come up with reasonable arguments against things I wrote, he comes up with the role of Switzerland in WWII. I guess if I was German, you would feel too stupid to come up with that, wouldn't you, or would you start complaining about Nazi Germany? If I was Russian, would you blame me for Communism? If I was American, would you blame me for the Genocide of the Native Americans and importing hunderds of thousands of slaves when just about every other nation in the world had stopped, even fighting a war for the right to hold slaves? Oh, wait, you ARE American, right? So whose side were you on, pro slavery or against it? How about lynching Afro-Americans, and openly racist laws in many states of the US as late as the 1960's and 1970's? Stupid that I bring this up, right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the discussion, and YOU didn't have anything to do with it anyway - guess what, neither did I.

    Obviously, you have no idea what I think about the role of Swizerland in WWII, and frankly, I doubt you know much about this role, the background, and the overall situation at the time. You can read a small part about my views in this reply. I am fully aware of the fact that there were many highly problematic aspects and that the official closing of the borders had tragic consequences. But I am also aware of the overall situation, that Switzerland as a nation was determined to keep Hitler out, even if outnumbered ten or more times. Being officially neutral was one means to help keep Nazi Germany out. It is true that many refugees were turned back, but it is also true that thousands were allowed to enter (mostly inofficially). It really is a long story, with good and bad things in a time of war.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions