doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: Konor3inch Politics - 11/24/20 10:47 AM
Would it be possible to park politics at the door and take personal grievances to PM .
When I am out walking up snipe or woodcock, flighting duck and geese , standing on a drive waiting for the first pheasant or stalking deer if I am with someone else the last topic we would talk about is politics.
It can’t be so hard to find a political forum to express your political views and PM is always an option to disagree as strongly as you may like ,lets leave the double gun forum free for double gun topics.
If we could stick to the thread that would be appreciated ie is it possible to park politics at the door and discuss double guns and double gun hunting. A yes or no would be sufficient.
Posted By: craigd Re: Politics - 11/24/20 12:12 PM
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
....When I am out walking up snipe or woodcock, flighting duck and geese , standing on a drive waiting for the first pheasant or stalking deer if I am with someone else the last topic we would talk about is politics....

It would be possible to park politics, if people such as yourself would not troll political topics in an antigun fashion? By troll, I specifically mean that you could not possibly have a progun position if it involves an exception for your desires and intollerance of others.

Off the soap box, I thank you for your honesty. Would you waste you time hunting with someone you did not care for? There are not enough cool guns or great hunts in this world to not take advantage of a little forethought?
Posted By: canvasback Re: Politics - 11/24/20 12:17 PM
There are other forums that are moderated and where politics are not allowed. 16 Gauge Society and Upland Journal forums come to mind. Many members here believe simply owning a gun, when gun ownership is under attack, is itself a political act. And because of that, feel the two are inseparable.

This is largely an unmoderated, or very lightly moderated forum. No one here is changing. So get used to it. The upside is there is no better forum to discuss and learn about vintage SxS.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 12:46 PM
Thank you for replying craigd. In my defence I would say that to state an opposing view is not trolling and that everyone should be free to state an opinion and have it debated , is that not the essence of free speech ?However when the debate drifts to making a characterisation of those that disagree in order to belittle their viewpoint then not only is it juvenile but also tends towards censorship. If your argument is strong enough then censorship is not necessary..
I don’t think any time spent hunting is wasted and would gladly spend time hunting with anyone. In fact it could be easily argued that time spent hunting with someone you disagree with is probably more profitable if it leads to you understanding the persons motivation for their beliefs..
I am sure I would be just as able to sincerely congratulate you on a right and left or a good shot on a high flying goose as I would anyone else. I find life too short to spend it doing otherwise.
As I have stated before The American situation is such that to be unarmed is probably not a good choice given the availability of firearms. In Scotland the availability of firearms is low and society as a whole benefits from that. Remember concealed carry was not an option immediately pre hand gun ban. To wish for an
environment where handguns were available here in Scotland after a background check would be detrimental to the country and that is a widely, if not totally , held view in Scotland. My views reflect those beliefs ,if you have an opposing view on firearms ownership and Scotland debate away I’m not afraid to read a contrary opinion well argued.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: Politics - 11/24/20 01:36 PM
You act as if there was ever an option to be armed for a commonwealth subject, such as yourself. There isn’t, never was, and never will be. You were defeated by a crown country, and told how you would live. Long ago. There is no option.
American citizens actually have a choice. We refused to be subjects, and defeated a crown country that would have had us exist as you do.
It wasn’t good enough for us. Rights are not given or taken by the crown. They are God given and belong to all men.
All men that put in the effort to retain them, anyway.

Best,
Ted
Posted By: craigd Re: Politics - 11/24/20 01:44 PM
It shouldn't be necessary, but seems logical to remind you for the umpteenth time that you may not be characterizing 'the American situation' correctly. From a selfish point of view, I am hurt that you did not spellcheck my comment, I know my blinking devices don't.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Politics - 11/24/20 01:53 PM
Originally Posted By: craigd
It shouldn't be necessary, but seems logical to remind you for the umpteenth time that you may not be characterizing 'the American situation' correctly. From a selfish point of view, I am hurt that you did not spellcheck my comment, I know my blinking devices don't.


Not that you've ever got it right, craigd
Posted By: HomelessjOe Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:23 PM
Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
You act as if there was ever an option to be armed for a commonwealth subject, such as yourself. There isn’t, never was, and never will be. You were defeated by a crown country, and told how you would live. Long ago. There is no option.
American citizens actually have a choice. We refused to be subjects, and defeated a crown country that would have had us exist as you do.
It wasn’t good enough for us. Rights are not given or taken by the crown. They are God given and belong to all men.
All men that put in the effort to retain them, anyway.

Best,
Ted

Now we have to defend our country from a Socialist/Communist take over.
Posted By: John Roberts Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:28 PM
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
Thank you for replying craigd. In my defence I would say that to state an opposing view is not trolling and that everyone should be free to state an opinion and have it debated , is that not the essence of free speech ?However when the debate drifts to making a characterisation of those that disagree in order to belittle their viewpoint then not only is it juvenile but also tends towards censorship. If your argument is strong enough then censorship is not necessary..
I don’t think any time spent hunting is wasted and would gladly spend time hunting with anyone. In fact it could be easily argued that time spent hunting with someone you disagree with is probably more profitable if it leads to you understanding the persons motivation for their beliefs..
I am sure I would be just as able to sincerely congratulate you on a right and left or a good shot on a high flying goose as I would anyone else. I find life too short to spend it doing otherwise.
As I have stated before The American situation is such that to be unarmed is probably not a good choice given the availability of firearms. In Scotland the availability of firearms is low and society as a whole benefits from that. Remember concealed carry was not an option pre hand gun ban. To wish for an
environment where handguns were available here in Scotland after a background check would be detrimental to the country and that is a widely, if not totally , held view in Scotland. My views reflect those beliefs ,if you have an opposing view on firearms ownership and Scotland debate away I’m not afraid to read a contrary opinion well argued.


I dare say you Scots have never had the crime problem we have had here due to the racial component that is expanded upon in this piece. Try to open your eyes and mind to what Scotland has never seen and why private ownership of a sidearm here is a tad more important than there. But it isn't totally a racial problem. We just happen to have many freedoms that allow criminals to prosper and the populace's need of a means to rely on for their defense of life, liberty and property other than the tardy policeman:

The Black Dilemma

"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of.

There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India, people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others - but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.* The elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---

"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
JR
Posted By: HomelessjOe Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:32 PM
Some would call that being a Racist....

I call it just a fact of life.
Posted By: nca225 Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:36 PM
Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
You act as if there was ever an option to be armed for a commonwealth subject, such as yourself. There isn’t, never was, and never will be. You were defeated by a crown country, and told how you would live. Long ago. There is no option.
American citizens actually have a choice. We refused to be subjects, and defeated a crown country that would have had us exist as you do.
It wasn’t good enough for us. Rights are not given or taken by the crown. They are God given and belong to all men.
All men that put in the effort to retain them, anyway.


Best,
Ted


Hey Konor, keep in mind, that while ted is right about this, it begins and ends wit taxes. ted's too idle to be able to recognize that while we, were rebelling against the crown for "freedom", we were concurrently enslaving a significant population of African Americans. Back in the day freedom, and liberty only went so far as skin color.

If you really want to him confused and on a diatribe, ask him, "well ted if you believe that, then do you think that the slaves in the south before the implementation of th 13th amendment, would have been right to arm themselves, overthrow the governments of the southern states, or the Union for that matter and kill every single slavery supporting person there was?
Posted By: craigd Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:41 PM
Originally Posted By: BrentD
Originally Posted By: craigd
It shouldn't be necessary, but seems logical to remind you for the umpteenth time that you may not be characterizing 'the American situation' correctly....


Not that you've ever got it right, craigd

Thank you for setting me straight and showing how much you exercise your right to tolerate whatever you feel like. By the way, a weapon of war or a nice sporter, Krags the new battle ground?
Posted By: HomelessjOe Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:46 PM
Originally Posted By: John Roberts

I dare say you Scots have never had the crime problem we have had here due to the racial component that is expanded upon in this piece. Try to open your eyes and mind to what Scotland has never seen and why private ownership of a sidearm here is a tad more important than there. But it isn't totally a racial problem. We just happen to have many freedoms that allow criminals to prosper and the populace's need of a means to rely on for their defense of life, liberty and property other than the tardy policeman:

The Black Dilemma

"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of.

There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India, people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others - but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.* The elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---

"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
JR



Some of that should be written into the U.S. Constitution.
Posted By: ed good Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:49 PM
jr, i have never seen "it" expressed better...thank you...
Posted By: Drew Hause Re: Politics - 11/24/20 02:52 PM
Konor: you've been here since 2013 and must be aware that others have attempted to confront the violation of the rules clearly posted by the owner of this site, who has chosen to ignore those rules by allowing racist, homophobic, bigoted, school-boy personal attacks and name calling, by a few cowardly bullies. The site is what it is, and the cure for the frustration is non-participation.

So just stop. Like..."The American situation is such that to be unarmed is probably not a good choice given the availability of firearms" is a faulty premise. "The American situation" is that very bad people who are for the most part prohibited by law from owning handguns, have them, and use them to hurt those weaker, or are defenseless, by their own foolish choice or by government edict.
BTW: at least in the U.S. South, Midwest, Southwest and Inter-mountain West it is viewed as bad form when a moral and intellectual superior shows up and lectures the locals as to the defects of their community, customs, culture; without spending a long time investing in the community and trying to understand the culture. Where in the U.S. have you spent time, and how much time?

Are you acquainted with Thomas Guthrie? He was a Free Church of Scotland minister, a founder of “Ragged Schools”, and the Free Church Temperance Society, with Horatius Bonar and William Chalmers Burns. He is not as well known as Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Maclaren or the Bonar brothers, but is another "Thundering Scot".
LR would particularly like Saving Knowledge: Addressed To Young Men
https://books.google.com/books?id=_ZdUAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

This is from his Speaking To The Heart, “The Trial and Triumph of Faith”
"The times, it is said, make men. True; but it is as true that men are made for the times - raised up by God with gifts and graces suited to the work they have to do."
These times are nothing like the "The Killing Time" the Covenanters endured, but 2020 has been a terrible time. What kind of men are we going to be?




Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 03:00 PM
Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
You act as if there was ever an option to be armed for a commonwealth subject, such as yourself. There isn’t, never was, and never will be. You were defeated by a crown country, and told how you would live. Long ago. There is no option.
American citizens actually have a choice. We refused to be subjects, and defeated a crown country that would have had us exist as you do.
It wasn’t good enough for us. Rights are not given or taken by the crown. They are God given and belong to all men.
All men that put in the effort to retain them, anyway.

Best,
Ted


Your reply is a prime example of my point Ted. You have obviously done no research on the strong opinion you hold as fact and prefer the polarising black and white statements that exist only to bolster your political opinion ,that it holds no basis in fact is merely an inconvenience.
Prior to the Firearms Act 1937 firearms possession in the UK was freely available and self defence was a suitable legal reason for firearms possession.
The Anglo Irish war and the fear of those returning from the second world war and the likelihood of unrest in the country were arguably contributing factors to the increased control of widespread firearms possession. Note that prior to 1968 no licensing existed for shotguns and that immediately after the 1968 laws ,incidentally brought about by the gunning down of a policeman with a hand gun,no record was kept of numbers of shotguns possessed or their details.
The Hungerford Massacre as it was called and the Dunblane Shooting brought about more restrictions. Self loading centre fire rifles in the former and handguns in the latter.
Both those changes in the law were brought about while the right wing Conservative Party were in power. So there is no question of there being a commie ,left wing , libtard etc influence overriding the decision to subsequently control those class of firearms.

I do not think for a second that God would condone the right to possess weapons that are so intertwined with abuse throughout modern history but then it does not surprise me that you hold a contrary view.
Posted By: craigd Re: Politics - 11/24/20 03:19 PM
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
....I do not think for a second that God would condone the right to possess weapons that are so intertwined with abuse throughout modern history but then it does not surprise me that you hold a contrary view.

You are wrong, again, Konor. The US Constitution is based on Judson-Christian values, but there is a prescribed method to change the document, and it is not through emotion.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 03:22 PM
Thank you John Roberts for taking the time to reply and laying out your response in such a straightforward way ,much appreciated.
Posted By: lagopus Re: Politics - 11/24/20 03:23 PM
Came in a bit late with this one but I can assure you that criminals and terrorists do certainly exist in the U.K. I know because I spent over 30 years of my life dealing with them!

I applaud certain of your freedoms and your defence of the right to bear arms. Our gun and hunting laws are different and we have certain freedoms in that area that you do not; it's just kind of different that's all. Back in 1689 we had written our Bill of Rights under the reign of William & Mary. In it it had the clause 'the right to bear arms for self defence'. Sound familiar? No doubt when Tom Jefferson and his mates sat down to draft your Constitution and Bill of Right he would have been familiar with this Bill. A ready made blue print that just required a few tweaks here and there. It's just the interpretation that differs. Ours is interpreted as the inalienable right to self defence. When it was written the best the firearms makers could come up with was a crude matchlock so it loosely means you can defend yourself with anything that comes to hand. The best bit about this Bill of Rights is that as Parliament didn't make it Parliament can't change it. I suspect that they don't like that fact! Never mind; tough!

You stick to your rights as interpreted. The United States is both different and similar to the United Kingdom in all sorts of ways which makes for an interesting international friendship; and long may in endure. Lagopus…..
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 03:47 PM
Originally Posted By: Drew Hause
Konor: you've been here since 2013 and must be aware that others have attempted to confront the violation of the rules clearly posted by the owner of this site, who has chosen to ignore those rules by allowing racist, homophobic, bigoted, school-boy personal attacks and name calling, by a few cowardly bullies. The site is what it is, and the cure for the frustration is non-participation.

So just stop. Like..."The American situation is such that to be unarmed is probably not a good choice given the availability of firearms" is a faulty premise. "The American situation" is that very bad people who are for the most part prohibited by law from owning handguns, have them, and use them to hurt those weaker, or are defenseless, by their own foolish choice or by government edict.
BTW: at least in the U.S. South, Midwest, Southwest and Inter-mountain West it is viewed as bad form when a moral and intellectual superior shows up and lectures the locals as to the defects of their community, customs, culture; without spending a long time investing in the community and trying to understand the culture. Where in the U.S. have you spent time, and how much time?

Are you acquainted with Thomas Guthrie? He was a Free Church of Scotland minister, a founder of “Ragged Schools”, and the Free Church Temperance Society, with Horatius Bonar and William Chalmers Burns. He is not as well known as Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Maclaren or the Bonar brothers, but is another "Thundering Scot".
LR would particularly like Saving Knowledge: Addressed To Young Men
https://books.google.com/books?id=_ZdUAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

This is from his Speaking To The Heart, “The Trial and Triumph of Faith”
"The times, it is said, make men. True; but it is as true that men are made for the times - raised up by God with gifts and graces suited to the work they have to do."
These times are nothing like the "The Killing Time" the Covenanters endured, but 2020 has been a terrible time. What kind of men are we going to be?





As you may or may not know the catalyst that caused me to dispute posts on this forum was the posting of “facts” surrounding the handgun ban in Scotland post Dunblane . So the point made by yourself about passing comment with little knowledge or understanding of the situation is apt. I do not consider myself morally or intellectually superior and to argue that that is the case would be pointless when the undercurrent of most of the political postings is to make just that point.
It should not be lost on you that the Covenanters of the south west of Scotland were massacred by Highland Scots soldiers who also raped and murdered and a sizeable number withdrew into the Ayrshire hills from where they returned via the raiders roads to thieve cattle and cause chaos.Or that Culloden had Highland armies on both side of the conflict. It is no little wonder that Scots fail to see in black and white. Weren’t the Scots deeply involved in the formation of the Klu Klux clan and haven’t we fought on the behalf of England and the Empire for over a century with a hand in numerous atrocities around the world from South Africa to Ireland from Aden to India. There will be few Scots who see things as black and white as some contributors here do and this is probably due to their heritage and awareness of the complexities and contradictions found in their own history.
That people have taken time to inform me of their opinion I appreciate and I am not voicing an opinion to change the opinions of others. I do so merely to let my opinion be heard whether it is considered valid or not is not my greatest concern. My greatest concern is having the freedom to voice that opinion.
Posted By: craigd Re: Politics - 11/24/20 03:59 PM
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
....As you may or may not know the catalyst that caused me to dispute posts on this forum was the posting of “facts” surrounding the handgun ban in Scotland post Dunblane . So the point made by yourself about passing comment with little knowledge or understanding of the situation is apt....

I believe you have had much more to comment about than the post Dunblane handgun ban. In a nutshell, you have commented that handguns were permissible for target shooting. Was the Dunblane shooter, target shooting, or are you able to extrapolate quite a bit of personal bias in relation to your, not anyone else’s handgun ban?
Posted By: keith Re: Politics - 11/24/20 04:05 PM
Death Tolls in Recent United Kingdom Mass Murders:

Hungerford Massacre-- 17 Killed including shooter. Weapon- M1 Carbine

Dunblane Massacre-- 18 Killed including shooter. Weapon- 9 m/m Browning pistol

2005 London Bombings-- 52 Killed including bomber. Weapon-- Al Qaeda Muslim Suicide Bomb

2017 Manchester Arena Bombing-- 23 Killed- Weapon Islamic Suicide Bomb

Lockerbie Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103-- 259 Passengers killed and 11 people killed on the ground for a total of 270 dead. Weapon-- Bomb planted by Muslim terrorist


It appears that there are certainly more efficient ways to murder innocent people than by criminal misuse of firearms!

Konor3inch wants to stop political discussions... but Konor3inch also can't help himself from getting into political discussions and propagating his anti-gun and anti 2nd Amendment beliefs on a U.S. of A. firearms forum. In fact, Konor3inch started his very first reply in this ridiculous off-topic thread with this:

Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
Thank you for replying craigd. In my defence I would say that to state an opposing view is not trolling and that everyone should be free to state an opinion and have it debated ...


Konor3inch then went on to cry that being ridiculed or otherwise taken to task for holding anti-gun beliefs amounts to a form of censorship. Konor3inch's solution is... you guessed it... censorship of politics.

Konor3inch wants us all to just get along, and simply forget about the anti-gunners in our midst. That is the essence of the so-called "Big Tent" that we are encouraged to support.

That is ridiculous. It is about as stupid as bringing a colony of termites into a wood framed house, or hiring a pedophile to babysit your children. We have been locked in a 70 year war of attrition where anti-gunners relentlessly work to whittle away the Constitutional firearms rights of law abiding citizens. Those gun owners and shooters who support and vote for anti-gun politicians are actually a worse threat to our gun rights than the people they support. It is time to stop pretending that they are not undermining our rights and freedoms.

One very inconvenient fact is that political discussions that frequently get more views and responses than the Threads about Double Guns. And quite a few here who claim they find them distasteful or unacceptable simply can't resist reading or jumping in.

canvasback provided Konor3inch with a perfect solution to his discontent. He can simply go to 16 Gauge Society or Upland Journal, where political discussions are not permitted.

Good riddance!
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 04:13 PM
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
....As you may or may not know the catalyst that caused me to dispute posts on this forum was the posting of “facts” surrounding the handgun ban in Scotland post Dunblane . So the point made by yourself about passing comment with little knowledge or understanding of the situation is apt....

I believe you have had much more to comment about than the post Dunblane handgun ban. In a nutshell, you have commented that handguns were permissible for target shooting. Was the Dunblane shooter, target shooting, or are you able to extrapolate quite a bit of personal bias in relation to your, not anyone else’s handgun ban?


The simplest answer to that would be
Were the majority of Scots in favour of a handgun ban post Dunblane ? I would contend that by far the majority of Scots favoured a ban.
The fact that a Conservative government brought in that ban ,with the agreement of the Labour Party only shows that the Government was comfortable in going against the wishes of those that opposed a ban and resulted in the outlawing of most handgun ownership.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 04:30 PM
Originally Posted By: keith
Death Tolls in Recent United Kingdom Mass Murders:

Hungerford Massacre-- 17 Killed including shooter. Weapon- M1 Carbine

Dunblane Massacre-- 18 Killed including shooter. Weapon- 9 m/m Browning pistol

Lockerbie Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103-- 259 Passengers killed and 11 people killed on the ground for a total of 270 dead. Weapon-- Bomb planted by Muslim terrorist


It appears that there are certainly more efficient ways to murder innocent people than by criminal misuse of firearms!

Konor3inch wants to stop political discussions... but Konor3inch also can't help himself from getting into political discussions and propagating his anti-gun and anti 2nd Amendment beliefs on a U.S. of A. firearms forum. In fact, Konor3inch started his very first reply in this ridiculous off-topic thread with this:

Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
Thank you for replying craigd. In my defence I would say that to state an opposing view is not trolling and that everyone should be free to state an opinion and have it debated ...


Konor3inch then went on to cry that being ridiculed or otherwise taken to task for holding anti-gun beliefs amounts to a form of censorship. Konor3inch's solution is... you guessed it... censorship of politics.

Konor3inch wants us all to just get along, and simply forget about the anti-gunners in our midst. That is the essence of the so-called "Big Tent" that we are encouraged to support.

That is ridiculous. It is about as stupid as bringing a colony of termites into a wood framed house, or hiring a pedophile to babysit your children. We have been locked in a 70 year war of attrition where anti-gunners relentlessly work to whittle away the Constitutional firearms rights of law abiding citizens. Those gun owners and shooters who support and vote for anti-gun politicians are actually a worse threat to our gun rights than the people they support. It is time to stop pretending that they are not undermining our rights and freedoms.

One very inconvenient fact is that political discussions that frequently get more views and responses than the Threads about Double Guns. And quite a few here who claim they find them distasteful or unacceptable simply can't resist reading or jumping in.

canvasback provided Konor3inch with a perfect solution to his discontent. He can simply go to 16 Gauge Society or Upland Journal, where political discussions are not permitted.

Good riddance!


Your interpretation of my posts are consistently unique .
Is your argument that until firearms misuse results in the number of casualties inflicted by a terrorist bombing of a plane that it is of no consequence?
It has been stated that the requirement to be armed rests on the freedom to oppose a tyrannical government but all I am seeing is the stockpiling of arms and ammunition in response to social insecurity.
I have already stated that your right to arm yourself is of no consequence to me so fill your boots, your government on the whole makes that easy for you to do.What I am also saying is that I do not wish that state of affairs to be the case in Scotland for reasons I have given ad nauseam. Should you wish to debate that point feel free but I would prefer you did not use that opinion as an excuse for your far right views and Democrat bashing that you are so well known for.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 04:33 PM
Keith your oft stated opinion generally revolves around misquoting or quoting out of context, do you think you could state a straight forward opinion without recourse to insult or adding your own embellishment to others posts? I doubt it. I am happy to hear your point of view but perhaps if you expressed it with less vehemence I might pay it more regard.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 04:40 PM
Thanks for all opinions expressed and thank you Dave for allowing this thread to continue. If anyone is desperate to take me to task feel free to PM me . I will answer as honest as I am able and not feel offended.
All the best
Konor
Posted By: keith Re: Politics - 11/24/20 04:42 PM
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch


Your interpretation of my posts are consistently unique .
Is your argument that until firearms misuse results in the number of casualties inflicted by a terrorist bombing of a plane that it is of no consequence?
It has been stated that the requirement to be armed rests on the freedom to oppose a tyrannical government but all I am seeing is the stockpiling of arms and ammunition in response to social insecurity.
I have already stated that your right to arm yourself is of no consequence to me so fill your boots, your government on the whole makes that easy for you to do.What I am also saying is that I do not wish that state of affairs to be the case in Scotland for reasons I have given ad nauseam. Should you wish to debate that point feel free but I would prefer you did not use that opinion as an excuse for your far right views and Democrat bashing that you are so well known for.


Ah, so you've changed your mind, and now you really do wish to engage in political discussions. It gets terribly confusing when you can't remain at all consistent.

My example of the far greater threat posed by Muslim terror attacks versus firearms attacks was simply to illustrate that you seem only concerned with the number of lives that can be saved by banning guns. Perhaps some future killer will use a Citori over/under, and then you can give up your guns too, instead of simply being willing to sacrifice the guns formerly owned by other gun owners.

You may prefer for me to not engage in Democrat and Libtard bashing, but since they are the ones almost entirely responsible for the attempts to infringe upon the Constitutional Firearms Rights of law abiding citizens, I'm afraid I won't be able to comply with your request. Of course, my distaste for Democrats and Libtards transcends their attempts to outlaw entire classes of guns, ammunition, hunting, etc.

If you find that problematic, you can always go to 16 Gauge Society or Upland Journal. BrentD says he really loves Upland Journal. I guess that's why he spends hundreds of hours here.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 04:58 PM
You are correct that I am concerned about the numbers of people needlessly killed by firearms abuse I would say we all are. Are you not?
Ithink the Upland Journal and 16 gauge Society have the right idea and it wouldn’t surprise me if it was brought into effect solely to keep you off those forums.
As has happened here already laws have been introduced arguably in a proportionate response to events that have occurred. Your premise that all guns would be banned is an unnecessary worry but thank you for your concern. Your assertion that I was willing to sacrifice handguns after the Dunblane tragedy is correct and I was far from alone. I don’t think a 90% poll in favour of a ban post Dunblane would be unrealistic ,perhaps even higher.
That your opinion and mine are so far apart is just how it is Keith and no amount of angry rhetoric will change that . I would still spend a day afield with you we wouldn’t be short of things to discuss. Take care,Konor
Posted By: ClapperZapper Re: Politics - 11/24/20 05:15 PM
You scold Konor, and overlook the resident Klannsmen? What next? Phrenology studies of African males?

I am far more sickened by the sage of Mississippi than any views a Scotsman may have on concealed carry.
Posted By: John Roberts Re: Politics - 11/24/20 05:46 PM
Originally Posted By: ClapperZapper
You scold Konor, and overlook the resident Klannsmen?

I am far more sickened by the sage of Mississippi than any views a Scotsman may have on concealed carry.


Yes, you would be. Pretty sure your experience with the descendants of slaves on a daily basis is infinitesimal compared to Down South folk, but I could be wrong in that regard. Trust me when I say we know them well and get along pretty well in spite of the race-baiters who do not want that. But there is no denying the fact of their participation in crime vs their percentage of the population that is off the chart, and their small contribution of good citizenship.

So, I view your response as a compliment. Thanks.
JR
Posted By: keith Re: Politics - 11/24/20 05:49 PM
Originally Posted By: ClapperZapper
You scold Konor, and overlook the resident Klannsmen? What next? Phrenology studies of African males?

I am far more sickened by the sage of Mississippi than any views a Scotsman may have on concealed carry.



Gee ClapperZapper, I didn't know that Democrat Klansmen Robert Byrd was a member here. And take a gander at all of these other racist politicians KKK members who are Democrat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

It looks like the number of Democrat politicians who were KKK members is at least 10 times the number or Republicans. And then we probably should also look at all of the Liberals and Democrats you support who got busted for wearing Black Face.

But you probably don't wish to go there... I wonder why???
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: Politics - 11/24/20 06:09 PM
Originally Posted By: John Roberts
Originally Posted By: ClapperZapper
You scold Konor, and overlook the resident Klannsmen?

I am far more sickened by the sage of Mississippi than any views a Scotsman may have on concealed carry.


Yes, you would be. Pretty sure your experience with the descendants of slaves on a daily basis is infinitesimal compared to Down South folk, but I could be wrong in that regard. Trust me when I say we know them well and get along pretty well in spite of the race-baiters who do not want that. But there is no denying the fact of their participation in crime vs their percentage of the population that is off the chart, and their small contribution of good citizenship.

So, I view your response as a compliment. Thanks.
JR


John, your racial bigotry is well known and disgusting. Yes, I know you are quite proud of it, which makes it all the more digusting. Yes, I've lived in the South and worked there even longer, so I am well aware of what is it like, and how you and people like you contribute that atmosphere of hate.

Dave has no guts to clean this place up and make it civil forum. Nor does he even have enough interest in it to post here more than once or twice a year. So I won't bother to observe the "rules" they are a joke that only protects those who continually, repeatedly, and vigorously abuse them.

Disgusting, indeed.
Posted By: Jtplumb Re: Politics - 11/24/20 06:15 PM
It’s not race, it’s a sub culture and I will remind you, there are more whites on welfare than any other race in USA. Yes I know the percentages but it is a cultural or lack of culture problem. Race doesn’t have much to do with it.
Sorry teaching kids the difference between right and wrong is the problem.
That Hood culture and entitlements have created our mess. Very sad.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 06:20 PM
Originally Posted By: canvasback
There are other forums that are moderated and where politics are not allowed. 16 Gauge Society and Upland Journal forums come to mind. Many members here believe simply owning a gun, when gun ownership is under attack, is itself a political act. And because of that, feel the two are inseparable.

This is largely an unmoderated, or very lightly moderated forum. No one here is changing. So get used to it. The upside is there is no better forum to discuss and learn about vintage SxS.


It looks like I’ll be doing that “get used to it” thing .
As you say there is no better forum to discuss and learn about vintage SxS so I will settle back and enjoy those topics being discussed.
It would probably be appropriate at this point to thank all the contributors who make that possible whatever their political leanings. Thank you
Posted By: canvasback Re: Politics - 11/24/20 06:22 PM
John Roberts is on the right track regarding the localization of crime. For certain reasons it is very localized. Canadian like to brag that our crime rates are so much lower than the US. But in reality, our crime rates are very similar to vast swathes of the US. Most places I might ever go.
Posted By: craigd Re: Politics - 11/24/20 06:56 PM
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
You are correct that I am concerned about the numbers of people needlessly killed by firearms abuse I would say we all are. Are you not?....

...As has happened here already laws have been introduced arguably in a proportionate response to events that have occurred. Your premise that all guns would be banned is an unnecessary worry but thank you for your concern....

You are sort of a fact kind of person. Take a minute and look up how many people where shot in New York and Chicago this past weekend, and the number that subsequently died. Don’t be shy about noting if the numbers are up or down, then note that the politicians that enable those horrific firearm crimes to take place are exactly of the same political mindset of yourself and other left wing leaning members.

From one point of view, the terrible gun crimes are inexcusable, but if you ask yourself why you and political folks of similar mindset can excuse it with an intellectual brush off, should those on the other side of the aisle feel guilt with your attempts to assign guilt where there s none?

Thank you for commenting, but I do not perceive that you answered how eliminating handgun target shooting addresses criminal activity of any sort?
Posted By: craigd Re: Politics - 11/24/20 07:02 PM
Originally Posted By: BrentD
....John, your racial bigotry is well known and disgusting. Yes, I know you are quite proud of it, which makes it all the more digusting. Yes, I've lived in the South and worked there even longer, so I am well aware of what is it like, and how you and people like you contribute that atmosphere of hate.

Dave has no guts to clean this place up and make it civil forum. Nor does he even have enough interest in it to post here more than once or twice a year. So I won't bother to observe the "rules" they are a joke that only protects those who continually, repeatedly, and vigorously abuse them.

Disgusting, indeed.

What say you Konor, bigotry or excusable because you think he’s on your side? Imagine if your tent was a forum, welcome the above with open arms?
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 07:55 PM
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: Konor3inch
You are correct that I am concerned about the numbers of people needlessly killed by firearms abuse I would say we all are. Are you not?....

...As has happened here already laws have been introduced arguably in a proportionate response to events that have occurred. Your premise that all guns would be banned is an unnecessary worry but thank you for your concern....

You are sort of a fact kind of person. Take a minute and look up how many people where shot in New York and Chicago this past weekend, and the number that subsequently died. Don’t be shy about noting if the numbers are up or down, then note that the politicians that enable those horrific firearm crimes to take place are exactly of the same political mindset of yourself and other left wing leaning members.

From one point of view, the terrible gun crimes are inexcusable, but if you ask yourself why you and political folks of similar mindset can excuse it with an intellectual brush off, should those on the other side of the aisle feel guilt with your attempts to assign guilt where there s none?

Thank you for commenting, but I do not perceive that you answered how eliminating handgun target shooting addresses criminal activity of any sort?



Perhaps if the hand gun ban had been brought in sooner the inadequate that was Thomas Hamilton would not have gone on to kill the school children he did in Dunblane. Equally no one will ever know how many similar incidents were avoided by bringing in a ban. That handgun target shooting ceased to exist is of little concern to the vast majority of Scots.
The fact that we do not have the scale of problems with handgun or indeed any firearm crime seems to evade you. Perhaps if we had freely available handguns owned for self defence and licensed to be carried by anyone passing a concealed carry course we would. We will not be going down that road to find out . Is that a surprise to you ?There is no hankering after handguns here among the Scots population perhaps you know better ,if so please enlighten me.
Posted By: Konor3inch Re: Politics - 11/24/20 08:02 PM
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: BrentD
....John, your racial bigotry is well known and disgusting. Yes, I know you are quite proud of it, which makes it all the more digusting. Yes, I've lived in the South and worked there even longer, so I am well aware of what is it like, and how you and people like you contribute that atmosphere of hate.

Dave has no guts to clean this place up and make it civil forum. Nor does he even have enough interest in it to post here more than once or twice a year. So I won't bother to observe the "rules" they are a joke that only protects those who continually, repeatedly, and vigorously abuse them.

Disgusting, indeed.

What say you Konor, bigotry or excusable because you think he’s on your side? Imagine if your tent was a forum, welcome the above with open arms?


Whom are you accusing of bigotry , John or BrentD ?
I’m afraid I speak for myself only as I find that I am more able to comment on issues that I am well informed rather than on those I have limited experience.
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com