Biden and the other idiot candidates
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by Roadkingtrax; 01-22-2020, 06:09."The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced." ~BG D. UllmanComment
-
Comment
-
Churchill was trolling those who dinged him for switching parties not once, but twice. His stand in 1940 was legendary but thereafter he was not known as a source of great ideas to further the war. His interests ran to those pieces of the empire lost to Japan, and gimmicky sideshows in Europe that would spare the British Army while the Soviets did the heavy lifting. However it is true that once the cross-channel invasion was fixed (by the Americans) the British did get on with their part in a proper spirit of doing their best and the whole thing came off well.Comment
-
) the British did get on with their part in a proper spirit of doing their best and the whole thing came off well.[/QUOTE]
Except for Gen. Montgomery who had to be put in his place by Eisenhower many times for his slow actions.
Market Garden was Montgomery's plan which failed miserably.Comment
-
Yes the British Army Generals did not have much to show for their battle plans across the span of the war. Let us not forget Anzio was also a British conception.Comment
-
By 1942 England was a spent empire with too many broken irons in the fire. If FDR had been persuaded to go after Japan first this would have left England in a bind. American Lend-Lease kept the "British Empire" going. By 1946 rationing had ended in America, England not until 1951. Financially what would happen to Europe if we left Europe to maintain itself? We are now energy self sufficient do we need to continue to police the word's supply? With our subs do we need to keep military bases overseas?
SamComment
-
I remember a while back the subject came up here about American citizens "loaning" their personal weapons to England. I assume even back then that the British were under socialist/communist control with no way to defend themselves and duh, look what happened. From articles I have read I believe most people in the U.S. believed they were going to get their guns back.
This was not part of the lend lease act that provided guns to their soldiers.
Some articles also state that they were dumped in the sea. I don't know if that means after the people used them or if they never made it to the people of England.
You would think since they got caught with their pants down that they would have become like Switzerland and pretty much encourage and demand gun ownership.
The rest is history.
Every Thursday we'll share an article from the American Rifleman archives. In 1940, 75 years ago, the British stood alone against Hitler’s war machine. In its plea to assist our friends across the Atlantic Ocean, the American Committee for the Defense of British Homes ran this notice in the November 1940 issue.Comment
-
Maybe "their" policemen will protect them!I remember a while back the subject came up here about American citizens "loaning" their personal weapons to England. I assume even back then that the British were under socialist/communist control with no way to defend themselves and duh, look what happened. From articles I have read I believe most people in the U.S. believed they were going to get their guns back.
This was not part of the lend lease act that provided guns to their soldiers.
Some articles also state that they were dumped in the sea. I don't know if that means after the people used them or if they never made it to the people of England.
You would think since they got caught with their pants down that they would have become like Switzerland and pretty much encourage and demand gun ownership.
The rest is history.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...-british-home/
SamComment
-
In England, there is no right to self-defense. If you kill or injure someone who's trying to kill you, you go to prison.Comment
-
That has made the news several times.
Here it is published as how ridiculous their laws are.
There, if published, would claim the homeowners had no right to defend themselves and were probably terrorist since they had a gun or knife. I assume any would be intruder could sue over any kind of resistance.Comment
-
They can, they have, and they have prevailed. In one case, a homeowner had been beaten several times by the same punks repeatedly invading his home. He shot one, and was charged and convicted. The judge sentencing him told him, "You are a danger to burglars."That has made the news several times.
Here it is published as how ridiculous their laws are.
There, if published, would claim the homeowners had no right to defend themselves and were probably terrorist since they had a gun or knife. I assume any would be intruder could sue over any kind of resistance.Comment

Comment