doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Theodore Roosevelt on critics

LD you did say you were leaving never to return....

I'm pretty sure some people here think that if we got rid of everyone except white Christian males, we'd be a much better country. Of course without women, said country would also be extinct before too long.

That's silly.

If we followed your muslim sympathy lead our country will be extinct.

Or more appros- if the Fo shits!!

That's what they said about . . . let's see . . . the evil Irish Catholics back in the 19th century. Then it was the Italians. Then we fought a civil war, partly over whether blacks could be free human beings or just property. Then it's the Mexicans, and others coming across our southern border.

Get a grip, Joe. There will never be enough Muslims in this country to have a significant influence on anything. (Currently, numbers are fairly similar to Jews or Mormons, and less than 10% the total of American Catholics.) Besides which, NO ONE gets any special breaks because of religion. If the Catholics can't stop abortion, with one heck of a lot more political clout than Muslims, you really think Muslims are going to bring us sharia? You think the women's movement--which also has way more clout than American Muslims--would stand for that? And it really doesn't make any difference anyhow, because of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In fewer words: We have both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. The Catholic church can tell their people that abortion is sin, but they can't stop Catholic women from getting an abortion. If that were allowed, that would be "an establishment of religion". Similarly, if a Muslim comes here and says my religion allows me to have two wives, or to marry a 12 year old girl, that is similarly out of bounds because both of those are in conflict with American law. Likewise, they can't stone a woman for adultery. All of those things are illegal here, and they don't get any special wavers because of their religion.

When it comes right down to it, that darned First Amendment is every bit as important as the Second.

See jOe... as long as they keep marriage (or rape) of 12 year old girls and the stoning of women for adultery outside of our borders, they are A-OK!

This brilliant Intelligence Analyst apparently hasn't looked at various countries in Europe where the Muslim population is increasing exponentially while their native populations are reproducing at rates that barely replace those who die of old age. Even Larry Clown's older brother King keeps crowing about the changing demographics that threaten to turn us into the minority in a generation or two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-continent.html

How do you argue with someone who says he tries real hard to not be dumber than dirt, but proves to us on a regular basis that dirt is still winning the intelligence competition?

Loons are neat birds. Loved them when I lived up in Wisconsin.

Craig, have you ever shot on a British shooting estate? I have. Several times. That's a place you get highly concentrated shot fall. Similar to waterfowl. And they don't run their estates the way we run our preserves. They get very young chicks, and those chicks are out and about at a very young age. So you have a whole lot of birds wandering around where a whole lot of shot has been deposited, before the shooting season starts. Then you have the survivors wandering around long after the shooting season ends. They're upland birds, so they don't travel great distances--which means they spend most of their time on the estate. There may very well be other sources of lead on the estate, but I can't think of any that are more likely than all the lead shot that's been deposited. So they ingest the lead, then pass the lead shot . . . still have high lead levels. Woodcock--another upland bird--also show very high lead levels with no lead shot in their systems. But because of what and how woodcock eat, and because they're not exposed to heavy shot fall, and because they migrate . . . there are far more possibilities for a woodcock to acquire lead than there are for a pheasant, who lives its entire life on a British shooting estate. But I'm not sure what your question was. I think my point was that if you find lead shot in a duck's digestive system, then that's pretty good proof it has ingested lead shot. Surely you're not arguing that?

I wasn't aware that immigrants--whether legal or illegal--made fun of people who speak English without being able to speak the language themselves. How would they know? Not assimilating doesn't have anything to do with criticizing the way someone else happens to speak a language you don't understand. Having lived abroad, I can assure you that Americans do make fun of people who speak foreign languages. But they're making fun not of the French or Arabic or whatever the foreigner is speaking, but because the foreigner is obviously too dumb to be able to speak English. I find that RWTF's English is just fine. His Spanish? I haven't a clue.

You ever think about having your lead levels checked ?

Thanks- my late Mother was a HS English and English composition teacher for 35 years- She drilled proper English into all of her children, especially me- No Spanish spoken in our household, some German from Ada Hammerschmidt, our housekeeper-cook. Now as to lead and the aforementioned commentary regarding both my religion )Roman Catholic) and the rogue priests that like to butt-[censored] choir boys and altar boys whenever the mood strikes them. A trip back in time to the Inquisition for those sick bastards suits me just fine- and the death penalty for all pedophiles-no mercy for those who commit such an infamita- none!!

Craig--Sorry I failed to respond to the "charities" point you raised. If you go back to the link provided and pull up the Terrorist Trial Report Card, you'll find a whole series of them. I was looking at the most recent one, which ends part way through 2011. There is no "charities" section in that report, but there is one on Material Support (which includes financial). If you look on pp 18-19, you'll find that material support charges are way UP. No way to break out charities, but one usually donates money to charities, and that's material support. Any donation to a group that's been designated a terrorist organization is a federal crime. The donor does not need to know that the money was in support of a terrorist act. The sticky part of charities is that they're usually not designated terrorist organizations. So if someone gives money to the Palestinian Red Crescent but the money ends up in the hands of Hamas, the prosecution would have to prove that the donor knew his charitable donation was, in reality, going to support terrorism.