Is it too far fetched to think Germans may have to come to A

Post Reply New Topic

So, the only connection I see in mentioning "Germans" is to remind people that Germany had the Nazis Party.

Is there any other reason you brought the modern-day Germans into this?
Is this what is called "Dog Whistling"?

Wut?

Of course that’s why I said Germans. What would you expect me to say? Rwandans? Venezuelans? Irish?

Why would I say anything except for Germans? Only the Germans had Nazis that Americans went overseas to defeat in the past. Now America has a small but growing group of neo Nazis embracing Nazi ideologies. So, maybe Germans will have to take on the opposite role this time and head overseas to defeat Nazis.

This is it a dog whistle. You don’t seem to understand what a dog whistle is.

Modern Germany has little to do with pre-war Germany—whether Nazi, Weimar, or the monarchy.

I wish we had U-Bahns and S-Bahns, instead of our subways.

Whereas I’m in rural England and half the people I know are gun owners, multiple different calibre rifles & shotguns for the most part.
Seeing someone wandering around the woods on their own with a double-barrel and a couple of dogs was an everyday, unremarkable & hum-drum part of my childhood.

I also regularly carry knives much bigger the 4” around: gardening tools... although if the police ever search my kit bag I might have some explaining to do re: 8” double edged Japanese hori
and various other hooked, spiked and bladed implements for that matter...

But you could have said Italians, or Spanish, or Hungarians, or Portuguese, or Brazilians.
All had fascist or quasi-fascistic regimes during that era,
which does somewhat legitimate the question: why pick out Germans in particular?

..

..because they had Nazis. Which everyone knows. And now the USA has a growing neo Nazi problem. The trump campaign isn’t exactly idolizing and emulating some obscure fascist party of Portugal or Brazil that no one but a history teacher has ever heard of. They’re using Nazi symbols in his campaign.

..how is this difficult to grasp?

It also has an Antifa problem, and from all I've seen in the media recently, the Antifa mob is a much more serious threat to people than the "neo Nazi"s...

So what sort of people would you advise should invade the USA to clean out the Antifa mob, as you are so concerned for the welfare of the citizens of the USA?

What news program are you watching that’s showing you a Antifa problem? Fox?

Hint: It’s not real. There are probably fewer than 1/10th violent left wing extremists to violent right wing extremists. Nearly All politically associated violence I see reported across multiple news sources in the USA is coming from the far right - the same place their domestic terrorism has come for decades.

In the cities and suburbs I’d say no,when I lived in the burbs I never saw guns in gun racks in the home.A neighbor hunted deer but we never saw his rifle.Kept it well hidden from us kids.
In rural areas yes,people have several guns usually.Shotguns,rifles and usually a side arm or two.Most hunt, have livestock so you might have to shoot a varmit or put down a sick animal.And for protection of course,it would take the police a good thirty minutes to get here.

A more likely "irony" would be Russia messing with our election successfully enough to get Trump reelected. The same nation that defeated most of Hitlers army in it's "Great Patriotic War" being the same nation that keeps in power a Neo Nazi sympathizer as its puppet to run the US.

What does "armed to the teeth" mean?

In my area it's legal for people to carry a handgun in the open (holster). I think I've seen that twice in ten years in public. No one does that. People can carry concealed if they have a permit to do so. I think the number of permits related to the population of the entire state is about 5% of people from what I recall reading a few years ago. That's a low number as well.

As far as guns people own and keep exclusively in their home, I agree with Korts that I don't believe most are "armed to the teeth". In talking to people through the years it seems that most people who do own guns are people who hunt and therefore may have a hunting rifle and/or shotgun. I've only known a handful of people that have AR15 type rifles through the years. Less than five people that I recall.

Also, I have worked in insurance for twenty years and previously worked in a department that dealt with homeowners insurance. People who had large collections of anything from jewelry to art to guns could pay extra to list each of their items separately on their insurance and therefore have them covered for theft. Again, I can count on one hand the number of people who had extensive gun collections who insured them and those were typically hunting and collector pieces/heirlooms and were not "assault weapons". All new clients were asked about any guns they owned to make them aware that if they did have a collection if them they'd have to pay extra to insure them for theft.

On a related topical note: I'm German-American and proud of my heritage.

That’s about the size of it...how Magna described it.

It wouldn’t be socially acceptable in most parts of the country to seem like you are always armed, or to constantly talk about guns.

Even in the most “gun happy” areas, the vast majority keep these guns firmly locked up, out of the reach of children.

Guns are not taken casually like they were in the Old West.

^ Correct. I only encountered a small number of people in all the years I worked with homeowners insurance who seemed to be rather obsessed with guns and said they had large collections. People like that would be and are still considered by most everyone else as "gun nuts". By "large collections" from what I recall it would have been maybe a dozen guns of different types. I've never met anyone in my life who had 20,30, 40, 50, 100+ guns.

I do think there are more guns in rural areas vs. urban and I think it's for several reasons:

1) Farmers, ranchers have guns to kill nuisance animals legally that can do a lot of expensive damage to their crops and livestock.

2) Rural areas are not protected by city police. Rural areas are typically protected by Sheriff departments. Sheriff departments are responsible with policing their entire counties respectively. Many counties cover large areas of many square miles. Response time therefore can be far longer than within the city limits. In remote rural areas residents are for the most part totally on their own to protect their lives which they have a right to do.

3) Rural residents are generally more apt to hunt since they're allowed to do so on their own land if they're out of the city limits.

For these reasons it would be more probable that someone attempting to break into a rural home or intending to cause harm to a rural property owner would be met with lethal force in self defense.

Same as over here, granted handguns are far less prevalent (to the best of my knowledge) and automatics aren’t legal.

Every now and then I come across a video article seeking to make out how “gun crazy” the US is by showing footage of teenagers at shooting ranges... and have a little internal chuckle brought on by the knowledge that a third or so of the kids where I grew up had their own rifles (2.2) by the time they started secondary school (for use under parental supervision of course).

Didn’t Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine flag up the fact that although the proportion of legal firearms in private ownership in the US is higher than most other western countries it isn’t the highest*, nor is it so much higher than the average as to be abnormal?

_______________________
*Canada and Switzerland were the highest of memory serves

I dunno.. I get the impression that it’s pretty easy to get a gun in a place like Chiraq.

It’s not hard to get a gun in certain places with lax gun control. It’s certainly not easy in most of the Northeast. It’s a long process to get a permit in NY State...even more so in NYC.

Not too many people are idiotic enough to delve into the illegal gun market. Even in rough neighborhoods.