Thread: Potential Ban/Brady Bill part deux?

Originally Posted by Magpie

I suppose you have all already forgotten the Warsaw ghetto uprisings.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Then again, not many Europeans would consider Poland as a part of Western Europe...

Took the grandson out shooting again (second day he has owned a .22 lr) and decided to go by walmart and get a couple boxes of 22 shells. I just thought there was a run on NATO rounds...nope, not a .22 shell in the place. Thank goodness I was prepared or the little fellow would have been disappointed.

Use your imagination a bit on the BATF proposal I posted earlier.

The calibers that come to mind first are .223 (5.56x49), 308 (7.62X51), 9MM (9X19), 7.62X39, 5.45X39. Then they'll reach out and touch every other obsolete ex military caliber that was ever used anywhere on the planet.

I still shoot some NORMA ammo in my 6.5X55. It's imported. 7.62X54, 30-06, 30 M1 Carbine, 8X57, 7X57, 6.5Jap, 7.7Jap, 7.5SWISS, 6.5 Carcano are a few that come to mind that are still fairly popular calibers here in the US. There are several ammo companies in Russia, and Eastern Europe that are making quality ammo at much lower prices than the BIG companies here in the US.

The BATF ruling, if enforced, would dry up everything but commercially manufactured stuff here in the US and shut off any importation of surplus or commercially made ammo.

The way I see it is a "back door" way to get at our guns.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Then again, not many Europeans would consider Poland as a part of Western Europe...

I find that statement somewhat disconcerting.

Was it meant to diminish the facts surrounding Poland's demise at the beginning of WWII or the demise of the Jews in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe? Just curious and NOT pointing a finger.

I will go so far as to say that if the rate of private gun ownership at that point in time was the same as what it is in the US today,



that the results might (but most likely not eventually) have been different.

I will go so far as to say that the conflict would have been a LOT more expensive for the Reich.

Originally Posted by Wullie

I find that statement somewhat disconcerting.

Was it meant to diminish the facts surrounding Poland's demise at the beginning of WWII or the demise of the Jews in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe? Just curious and NOT pointing a finger.

Whoa, relax mate.
The comment was pretty clear.
Poland is not generally regarded as a western European country.
Nothing more than that.
Bruno's comment did specify most western European countries, of which Poland is not part.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Whoa, relax mate.
The comment was pretty clear.
Poland is not generally regarded as a western European country.
Nothing more than that.
Bruno's comment did specify most western European countries, of which Poland is not part.

Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Whoa, relax mate.
The comment was pretty clear.
Poland is not generally regarded as a western European country.
Nothing more than that.
Bruno's comment did specify most western European countries, of which Poland is not part.

Geographically Poland is middle European, although during the times of the iron curtain (only) it was considered politically eastern. During WW2 it still was still in the middle, divided by Soviet and Germany.

Anyways, beautiful and interesting country with a lot to see. Always nice to visit. Only 1 hr flight from here.

Originally Posted by Sailor

...
Anyways, beautiful and interesting country with a lot to see. Always nice to visit. Only 1 hr flight from here.

Very much so
My first visit was with the white buses, back in my teens.
Seeing Auschwitz first hand made an impact to say the least.
Later in life I have visited Poland on two occasions, both splendid trips to a beautiful country.
The people I've met have been the sweetest possible, with a genuine hospitality not easily found elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Sailor

You shouldn't also forget how the Warsaw ghetto uprising ended.

There are plenty of examples what has happened when 'people' (or that is what they liked to call themselves) have risen against governments, lastly our civil war. It is not civilians against government but divided nation fighting by themselves. Father against son, wife against husband. And the revenge and terror for those who finally lose. I wouldn't want to forget the lessons given by the struggles.

I dont forget a thing. I say as little as possible, so it wont degrade into anything other than a statement. Those who do not know the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings will hopefully be inspired to learn.
They cant forget what they never knew. My telling them is just another talking head. Their own reading of history is likely far more effective and believable than just another post by me on the internet

Originally Posted by Magpie

I dont forget a thing. I say as little as possible, so it wont degrade into anything other than a statement. Those who do not know the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings will hopefully be inspired to learn.
They cant forget what they never knew. My telling them is just another talking head. Their own reading of history is likely far more effective and believable than just another post by me on the internet

That is what i meant with my statement. The uprising ended tragically, causing probably bigger death toll that wouldn't have happened without. But that is 'what if'. I'm not trying to offend you or anyone.

You see, i have nothing against guns per se. I own some, and work with them. Practice at least twice a month and pass the annual test to stay on my job. I see no glory nor savior in them.
It's the willingness to see a gun as a solution. Not just 'bad guys' but 'good guys' as well. Of course society has to respond the thread it has to deal everyday, but what just makes people shoot each other.

We have a lot of guns in this country. Still gun related violence is almost zero. Not all cops carry guns.
How many guns you need until you can reduce the gun related violence/accidents into zero? The question lies not in the number of guns but willingness to use them.

Still the idea of people successfully rising against government is bs. People without external help against organized and disciplined army? Fairytail. In every civil war it's civilian against civilians. 'A good way to get rid of the neighbor you do not like'.
Probably our civil war was that much later that people at least learned that taking a gun against leaders, elected by a vote, would lead only into nation divided in two. Real killing starts after battles have been fought, just like in Warsaw uprising. It's the terror and revenge of those who won against those who were innocent.