ChIkEn NuGrEt
Well-Known Member
That’s very interesting, just goes to show how important proper punctuation is.
Do people carry guns in zoos in the USA?
- Thread starter TinoPup
- Start date
If you become a Premium Member you don't get ads:
https://www.zoochat.com/community/account/upgrades
Bib Fortuna
Well-Known Member
No, it's not - it's the United States of America. I also don't understand all the excitement about Trump-in the USA politics is not made by the president of the state, but by the president of the NRA-who is in reality the most powerful man in the world, not Biden....
A few years ago I was able to buy a movie in uncut version in the rummage table at Walmart in the USA, which was sold in Germany itself only in the cut version under the counter....In germany, some of the violent scenes were cut from the movie Basic Instinct, in the Usa some sex scenes...I still do not understand why this society has not yet died out....
Yes, violence is everyday life there, but the main thing is to hold the eyes of the children in the zoo, when gorillas mate directly at the window, or a bull elephant reveals that he actually has two trunks-
as I had to experience it myself. In a shrill, overly hysterical female voice : "Ohhhh my Gooooood. Don't look, Kid, don't look ! Close your eyes, baby !" I bet the women sued the zoos for $50 million and won.
Such children go home traumatized, and then have to do a 3-month-long therapy to process this terrible event-and 6 months, if they see their parents naked. Americans reproduce through the petri dish, didn't you know?
Stupidity and violence is an explosive mixture, and where this leads, that shows us the united states of Firerarmerica very impressively...
Well, I've been there a few times, and I just don't think about the fact that every second person is walking around with a gun in his pocket. But don't worry, as long as you don't dare to enter a stranger's garden in the daytime or as a colored person get into a police check, you don't have to fear to be shot.
Do you know the movie The Blob from 1988? In there, two 10 year old kids want to go to the cinema to watch a splatter movie. Here's the dialogue with the mother, which describes the USA in one sentence:
Kid : And then to the Movies.
Mother : What Movie ?
Kid : Garden Tool Massacre. Your basic slice-n-dice.
Mother : Your basic what ?
Kid : This guy in a hockey mask chops up a few teenagers. But don't worry, there's no sex or anything bad."
In the german version, he says:" But dont'worry, there's no Sex-nothing bad".
A few years ago I was in the sauna - here in Germany - and as you may know, in most Central European countries people go to the sauna completely - really completely unclothed (of course not in the Catholic countries, but in Germany there is - fortunately - atheism). Well, there actually came an about 25 years old young man into the sauna-in boxers, and he was visibly shocked that around him many people-men, women, even children, completely naked ran around... That has not been able to grasp. When he actually wanted to enter the sauna cabin with his boxer shorts, he was asked by the sauna master to drop his pants - only the boy couldn't speak German, because he came from glorious America, where nudity in public is punished by the electric chair...dressed, of course.
Since I happened to be nearby, I was kind enough to translate, because the sauna master couldn't speak English; "Drop you pants, boy, or leave". 
Well, all these naked people around him totally confused the poor boy-you must remember that he had never seen anything like this before in his life-amok runs are nothing special in the USA, they're part of everyday life, but hundreds of naked people running around him ...this was too much for him.Thank God he probably didn't have a gun with him, in which case he would have shot a) the saunameister b) 50 saunaguests or c) himself...or d) all of them...The end of the story- he's gone, of course. I bet he hasn't gotten over that experience to this day. "Well, Boy, how was germany ?" "MUUUUM, it was horrible, naked people everywhere-they were all naked, all of them! "That's funny, son-I thought they were all wearing lederhosen there?"
When will that change? Well, rather a blind wheelchair user will climb the Mount Everst by himself, before that happens...
Last edited by a moderator:
My ex-partner worked for a time in customer service at Werribee Open Range Zoo. They once had a raging debate with an American tourist who insisted he should be able to hire a gun at the zoo and shoot the animals. “Open Range” means different things to different people, it turns out.
I’m not too keen on guns being in the hands of most people who carry them. I also believe that guns are too often in the wrong hands at the wrong time and turn an aggravating situation into a deadly one.
But...I know that guns in the right hands at the right time can keep an unpleasant situation from being much worse.
One pet peeve of mine, living in the relatively gun tolerant state of Alaska, is folks (and there aren’t that many of them) who insist on openly carrying a gun while out in public. Hiking through the woods or spending hours fishing along your favorite Salmon stream? A gun might be prudent. Browsing at the book store (seriously) or walking your dog down my street? It’s ridiculous. At best stupid and at worst an open attempt to intimidate your fellow citizens and neighbors.
Here’s the paradox though...I support 100% universal concealed carry of firearms for any adult not intoxicated, impaired, convicted of a violent crime, or currently under legal custodial supervision.
I firmly support the 2nd Amendment and absolutely believe it’s meant to affirm an Individual (not collective) Right*. The well regulated part allows states to impose regulation as it pertains to regulating that right for the purpose of collective and individual defense. This regulation, in my opinion, might include maintaining licensing and training requirements for gun owners or establishing under what circumstances a court might determine an individual can no longer be entrusted with that right (remember that point because it is my firm belief that if you are judged to be incompetent to own a firearm, you also should not be voting). I’d even go as far as arguing a state can limit the number of weapons owned and dictate how weapons should be stored when not in use for training or defense.
So, in my opinion, if you have been convicted of an illegal act of violence or have been judged to be mentally incapable of responsibly owning a firearm or are currently under the custodial supervision of the state...no gun for you. Otherwise, every citizen of the United States should be able to own, carry, and maintain proficiency with a sidearm (pistol) and a rifle (semi-automatic) of equal caliber and operational efficiency to that issued to constables on patrol (police officers) and line soldiers (rifleman in an infantry squad), as well as sufficient ammunition to maintain proficiency (minimum 100 rounds a year for each type) and operational capacity (this comes to 45 rounds for a pistol and 180 rounds for a rifle). This excludes explosives, crew served, or automatic weapons (so no false arguments about every household needing a nuke or “machine gun” to distract from what is a clear constitutional right)**.
The states, in my opinion, in the regulation of their “militia,” may only limit an adult voting citizen to only one weapon of each type...but other than that...it’s every American’s right to own at least one weapon of both types. This is of course my opinion, but the Supreme Court has in past rulings specifically identified “militia type” weapons as being the type constitutionally protected.
Trouble is, anti-gun folks want to cling to their “weapons of war” prohibitory bias, as well as the technicality of the comma; while gun nuts (or enthusiasts), and the arms and munitions lobby (manufacturers and sellers), don’t want to enable the slippery slope of regulation that might cut into their access or profits. We need one good case argued in front of the Supreme Court, I think...but common sense and middle ground are ethos and geographies that seem scarcer every day.
Regarding the role of the citizen in both the practice of the franchise and the citizen’s
militia:
In every Democracy on Earth the citizen can vote (and reasonably, I hope, expect their vote to count and for corrupted power {all power is thus} to be restrained in the transition of government). The distinction of the United States is that with the franchise the citizen is also presumed a member of the militia. We are a Democracy of Armed Citizens. Here is where the right to vote and the right to bear arms go hand in hand and the arming, more than the vote itself, is arguably the distinction of the American in contrast to the citizen of most any other Democracy.
That’s not to say that all American citizens have to “bear arms,” anymore than all citizens have to practice the vote. If you don’t want to participate in either practice...it’s a free country. You can’t be compelled too. But it is your right if you so chose to exercise it. The government of the people cannot abridge that right without a constitutional amendment. And again, in my opinion, reflecting the dual responsibilities and privileges of the citizen...if you are prevented from owning a firearm...the vote should be denied to you as well.
Now having said all that...my personal experience, just for context: I have carried a firearm as part of my profession for 33 years. I have never been involved in a shooting. I have never carried a firearm off duty.
Walking through Alaska’s wild lands, I’m really just hoping my luck holds and the pepper spray works as advertised. As I’ve remarked in other posts...I don’t hunt either.
And I know that “Gun Rights” can be an exasperating topic among Americans of different philosophies and that the idea can be exceptionally alien a concept to non-Americans...and emotions run high. I sincerely don’t mean to cause offense, but the United States is neither a dystopia nor a failed experiment. It’s a country unlike any other maybe...but having lived in a few others, not that much unlike.
It is also a country with more folks everyday wanting to get in and very few wanting (beyond the short sharp emotional rhetoric of presidential seasons) to leave. Long before people anywhere used ballots, they voted with their feet and they still do...and they are coming to America everyday.
I don’t think it would be exceptionally obtuse (in light of some other assumptions made in this thread) to observe that the only countries (not outright hostile and even then) where citizens don’t seem to be lining up for visas to the Grand Republic are those firmly under that Republic’s economic largess, it’s outright military protection, or it’s cultural influence to the point our similarities are so precise that America’s “gun policies” seem shocking to that familiarity.
I would acknowledge that some citizens of other countries admittedly would not care to emigrate to America ...anymore than my teenager wants to emigrate from her comfy, secure, well apportioned bedroom, to my generous kitchen where her dirty dishes continue to pile up! ;-)
I’m just teasing...except just having read a couple more of the exaggerated anecdotes...maybe I’m not.
I literally went out of my way to tone down my “exceptionalism”... and now just when I need it most...apparently my middle finger emoji doesn’t translate.
Oh well...I’ve heard it before.
Anecdotal from one of this site’s favorite American movies*** “The Big Year”:
Setting High Island Texas -
Two snitty Brits disdainfully -
“Only Americans could turn something like birding into a competition.”
Jaunty American (portrayed by native Texan Owen Wilson) raises middle finger in casual disregard of world opinion -
“That’s right and you don’t want to miss this one.”
*Note: I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that the 2nd Amendment could be intended to be a restriction on the power of the federal government to prohibit states from maintaining armed forces of their own (militias or national guard units under the authority of the governors), but doing so ignores historic practice regarding the ownership of militia style small arms, disregards the Bill of Rights being a series restrictions on government authority over the citizen and not the states, and the philosophy that in all other aspects of governance, unless explicitly prohibited as an abridgment of federal authority or citizens rights...the states have sovereignty. Therefore unless specifically prohibited in the constitution, the federal government could not prevent the states from maintaining their militias, rendering the necessity of an Amendment protecting the state’s rights to maintain a militia moot...ergo, it was specifically understood at the time of its drafting to be an individual right, reflecting the citizen’s duty to the defense of the collective and the citizen’s right to defend their person. Ain’t that America?
**Note: the Constitutionality of legal restrictions on the ownership of Automatic Weapons and Explosives, actually reinforces the concept that semi-automatic pistols and rifles of the type carried by constables and line soldiers are indeed specifically protected.
***Note: If it’s not it should be.
But...I know that guns in the right hands at the right time can keep an unpleasant situation from being much worse.
One pet peeve of mine, living in the relatively gun tolerant state of Alaska, is folks (and there aren’t that many of them) who insist on openly carrying a gun while out in public. Hiking through the woods or spending hours fishing along your favorite Salmon stream? A gun might be prudent. Browsing at the book store (seriously) or walking your dog down my street? It’s ridiculous. At best stupid and at worst an open attempt to intimidate your fellow citizens and neighbors.
Here’s the paradox though...I support 100% universal concealed carry of firearms for any adult not intoxicated, impaired, convicted of a violent crime, or currently under legal custodial supervision.
I firmly support the 2nd Amendment and absolutely believe it’s meant to affirm an Individual (not collective) Right*. The well regulated part allows states to impose regulation as it pertains to regulating that right for the purpose of collective and individual defense. This regulation, in my opinion, might include maintaining licensing and training requirements for gun owners or establishing under what circumstances a court might determine an individual can no longer be entrusted with that right (remember that point because it is my firm belief that if you are judged to be incompetent to own a firearm, you also should not be voting). I’d even go as far as arguing a state can limit the number of weapons owned and dictate how weapons should be stored when not in use for training or defense.
So, in my opinion, if you have been convicted of an illegal act of violence or have been judged to be mentally incapable of responsibly owning a firearm or are currently under the custodial supervision of the state...no gun for you. Otherwise, every citizen of the United States should be able to own, carry, and maintain proficiency with a sidearm (pistol) and a rifle (semi-automatic) of equal caliber and operational efficiency to that issued to constables on patrol (police officers) and line soldiers (rifleman in an infantry squad), as well as sufficient ammunition to maintain proficiency (minimum 100 rounds a year for each type) and operational capacity (this comes to 45 rounds for a pistol and 180 rounds for a rifle). This excludes explosives, crew served, or automatic weapons (so no false arguments about every household needing a nuke or “machine gun” to distract from what is a clear constitutional right)**.
The states, in my opinion, in the regulation of their “militia,” may only limit an adult voting citizen to only one weapon of each type...but other than that...it’s every American’s right to own at least one weapon of both types. This is of course my opinion, but the Supreme Court has in past rulings specifically identified “militia type” weapons as being the type constitutionally protected.
Trouble is, anti-gun folks want to cling to their “weapons of war” prohibitory bias, as well as the technicality of the comma; while gun nuts (or enthusiasts), and the arms and munitions lobby (manufacturers and sellers), don’t want to enable the slippery slope of regulation that might cut into their access or profits. We need one good case argued in front of the Supreme Court, I think...but common sense and middle ground are ethos and geographies that seem scarcer every day.
Regarding the role of the citizen in both the practice of the franchise and the citizen’s
militia:
In every Democracy on Earth the citizen can vote (and reasonably, I hope, expect their vote to count and for corrupted power {all power is thus} to be restrained in the transition of government). The distinction of the United States is that with the franchise the citizen is also presumed a member of the militia. We are a Democracy of Armed Citizens. Here is where the right to vote and the right to bear arms go hand in hand and the arming, more than the vote itself, is arguably the distinction of the American in contrast to the citizen of most any other Democracy.
That’s not to say that all American citizens have to “bear arms,” anymore than all citizens have to practice the vote. If you don’t want to participate in either practice...it’s a free country. You can’t be compelled too. But it is your right if you so chose to exercise it. The government of the people cannot abridge that right without a constitutional amendment. And again, in my opinion, reflecting the dual responsibilities and privileges of the citizen...if you are prevented from owning a firearm...the vote should be denied to you as well.
Now having said all that...my personal experience, just for context: I have carried a firearm as part of my profession for 33 years. I have never been involved in a shooting. I have never carried a firearm off duty.
Walking through Alaska’s wild lands, I’m really just hoping my luck holds and the pepper spray works as advertised. As I’ve remarked in other posts...I don’t hunt either.
And I know that “Gun Rights” can be an exasperating topic among Americans of different philosophies and that the idea can be exceptionally alien a concept to non-Americans...and emotions run high. I sincerely don’t mean to cause offense, but the United States is neither a dystopia nor a failed experiment. It’s a country unlike any other maybe...but having lived in a few others, not that much unlike.
It is also a country with more folks everyday wanting to get in and very few wanting (beyond the short sharp emotional rhetoric of presidential seasons) to leave. Long before people anywhere used ballots, they voted with their feet and they still do...and they are coming to America everyday.
I don’t think it would be exceptionally obtuse (in light of some other assumptions made in this thread) to observe that the only countries (not outright hostile and even then) where citizens don’t seem to be lining up for visas to the Grand Republic are those firmly under that Republic’s economic largess, it’s outright military protection, or it’s cultural influence to the point our similarities are so precise that America’s “gun policies” seem shocking to that familiarity.
I would acknowledge that some citizens of other countries admittedly would not care to emigrate to America ...anymore than my teenager wants to emigrate from her comfy, secure, well apportioned bedroom, to my generous kitchen where her dirty dishes continue to pile up! ;-)
I’m just teasing...except just having read a couple more of the exaggerated anecdotes...maybe I’m not.
I literally went out of my way to tone down my “exceptionalism”... and now just when I need it most...apparently my middle finger emoji doesn’t translate.
Oh well...I’ve heard it before.
Anecdotal from one of this site’s favorite American movies*** “The Big Year”:
Setting High Island Texas -
Two snitty Brits disdainfully -
“Only Americans could turn something like birding into a competition.”
Jaunty American (portrayed by native Texan Owen Wilson) raises middle finger in casual disregard of world opinion -
“That’s right and you don’t want to miss this one.”
*Note: I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that the 2nd Amendment could be intended to be a restriction on the power of the federal government to prohibit states from maintaining armed forces of their own (militias or national guard units under the authority of the governors), but doing so ignores historic practice regarding the ownership of militia style small arms, disregards the Bill of Rights being a series restrictions on government authority over the citizen and not the states, and the philosophy that in all other aspects of governance, unless explicitly prohibited as an abridgment of federal authority or citizens rights...the states have sovereignty. Therefore unless specifically prohibited in the constitution, the federal government could not prevent the states from maintaining their militias, rendering the necessity of an Amendment protecting the state’s rights to maintain a militia moot...ergo, it was specifically understood at the time of its drafting to be an individual right, reflecting the citizen’s duty to the defense of the collective and the citizen’s right to defend their person. Ain’t that America?
**Note: the Constitutionality of legal restrictions on the ownership of Automatic Weapons and Explosives, actually reinforces the concept that semi-automatic pistols and rifles of the type carried by constables and line soldiers are indeed specifically protected.
***Note: If it’s not it should be.
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Seriously ?!
Interesting cultural differences.
Before COVID I would visit the USA once or twice a year mostly for business but have travelled widely in the States. I've never felt unsafe and cannot remember seeing anybody handling a gun in public. On the other hand I'm always aware of the potential dangers. In recent years there have been two cases that got a lot of publicity in Australia as the victims were both Australian, one a young man who was shot dead in broad daylight while jogging down a suburban street. The second was a woman who was shot dead by a policeman while reporting a suspected prowler. There is actually a video on the Australian government website all Australian visitors to the US are advised to watch on how to survive a mass shooting. Having said that none of my American friends own a gun.
Following a mass shooting in Australia back in 1996 the Government moved to ban all semi-automatic guns and there was a mass buyback. Interestingly while this seems to have been successful in stopping any further mass shootings the biggest result was the drop in deaths from suicide and accidental shootings. The Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, was a conservative and Bush Jr. called Howard his "man of steel", Howard tells the story of talking to a convention of American conservatives in Texas, which went very well until at the end someone asked him what he considered his most notable achievement as Prime Minister. He said removing the guns and suddenly the hall went absolutely silent.
By contrast I was astounded on a visit to Switzerland and Austria a couple of years back to see where and how many people were smoking. Strangest thing was seeing cigarette advertising. In Austria in particular it seemed people were smoking everywhere, including both inside and outside in cafes. I think I was potentially more at risk of dying from passive smoking than I was from gunshot in the US.
But to finish on a positive note the most friendly people are Canadians. I visited Toronto and coming down in the lift were a couple from out of town. Later in the day we shared a lift going up and before I got out of the lift I had an invitation to come and stay with them.
Before COVID I would visit the USA once or twice a year mostly for business but have travelled widely in the States. I've never felt unsafe and cannot remember seeing anybody handling a gun in public. On the other hand I'm always aware of the potential dangers. In recent years there have been two cases that got a lot of publicity in Australia as the victims were both Australian, one a young man who was shot dead in broad daylight while jogging down a suburban street. The second was a woman who was shot dead by a policeman while reporting a suspected prowler. There is actually a video on the Australian government website all Australian visitors to the US are advised to watch on how to survive a mass shooting. Having said that none of my American friends own a gun.
Following a mass shooting in Australia back in 1996 the Government moved to ban all semi-automatic guns and there was a mass buyback. Interestingly while this seems to have been successful in stopping any further mass shootings the biggest result was the drop in deaths from suicide and accidental shootings. The Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, was a conservative and Bush Jr. called Howard his "man of steel", Howard tells the story of talking to a convention of American conservatives in Texas, which went very well until at the end someone asked him what he considered his most notable achievement as Prime Minister. He said removing the guns and suddenly the hall went absolutely silent.
By contrast I was astounded on a visit to Switzerland and Austria a couple of years back to see where and how many people were smoking. Strangest thing was seeing cigarette advertising. In Austria in particular it seemed people were smoking everywhere, including both inside and outside in cafes. I think I was potentially more at risk of dying from passive smoking than I was from gunshot in the US.
But to finish on a positive note the most friendly people are Canadians. I visited Toronto and coming down in the lift were a couple from out of town. Later in the day we shared a lift going up and before I got out of the lift I had an invitation to come and stay with them.
Oh, and how is everyone’s Big Year going? Today I spotted a Common Merganser. I’ll update my list after I get back from Seward this weekend.
I generally also support a sensible, middle ground solution- banning AK-47s and AR-15s, passing a universal background check, closing loopholes, banning ghost guns, etc., but I think you have the wrong place. The way the Supreme Court works you have to challenge an existing rule. The supreme court cannot create laws. If you look at past gun-related cases at the supreme court, they are almost, if not, always a group (like the NRA) challenging a state law as "violating the second amendment", successfully or otherwise. The unfortunate thing is that any gun legislation would need to overcome the senate filibuster, and just like many other modern-day issues, the lack of compromise makes getting over the filibuster extraordinarily difficult.
You are right. Unfortunately the NRA takes a blanket defense and tries to hold back any erosion of gun rights, which while largely successful in the short-term is probably going to backfire in the long-term. This strategy in turn prevents pro-gun (I don’t really like that term but that’s what we have...when every gun banning politician will ardently claim to be pro 2nd Amendment...provided it’s “properly”interpreted as protecting single shot breechloading shotguns for the purpose of duck hunting) politicians from introducing reasonable regulations which would serve to enshrine for generations the right to “bear arms.” Any move in that direction and they face a primary challenge (supported by the NRA) from the right. So I still believe the best chance at reasonable regulation that protects gun rights is going to happen in the court with a ruling affirming once and for all that the second amendment is primarily concerned with collective and personal defense, that “bearing arms” is an inherent right of citizenship, and that militia type weapons are specifically protected. Once affirmed, then reasonable regulation is feasible in both calming the anxieties of gun owners and tempering the ambition of gun grabbers. I believe without reservation that the progress toward a near ban on private ownership of firearms will progress through reasonable restrictions via incremental legislation...therefore again the right argument in front of the Supreme Court should be the goal. The reluctance of the court to take up 2nd Amendment cases in my opinion reflects an understanding that that argument is likely and that it will be politically earth shattering...either rending the Constitution or, more likely, shattering the anti-gun left. It’s that clear an argument.
Also I do support the right to own and maintain proficiency with an AR-15 type weapon. I just don’t have a problem with individual states requiring these weapons be restricted in number owned, being licensed or registered (in the fashion of automobiles), or preventing their unregulated transfer, in accordance with each state’s philosophy regarding the regulation of it’s militia (residents of the state).
Those are restrictions the manufacturers, sellers, and “hoarders (?)” do not want to entertain. Although I’m sure most Americans would.
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I dont think there is anything wrong with people purchasing or owning hunting caliber firearms like rifles and shotguns (as long as these are not in the hands of people with severe mental illness or being aimed and fired at endangered species).
I do think there is an enormous social problem with the sale , purchase and ownership of semi automatic assault style weapons and a culture of worship of these (strikes me as a bit of a death cult really).
I do think there is an enormous social problem with the sale , purchase and ownership of semi automatic assault style weapons and a culture of worship of these (strikes me as a bit of a death cult really).
Last edited:
ChIkEn NuGrEt
Well-Known Member
When it comes to guns I’d prefer that the law was “no open carry, license required,” I mean in Texas we need a license, but open carries make me a bit uncomfortable.
ChIkEn NuGrEt
Well-Known Member
Saw the tortoises mate, but the only thing about that that made me feel uneasy was that deep bellowing sound.No, it's not - it's the United States of America. I also don't understand all the excitement about Trump-in the USA politics is not made by the president of the state, but by the president of the NRA-who is in reality the most powerful man in the world, not Biden....
A few years ago I was able to buy a movie in uncut version in the rummage table at Walmart in the USA, which was sold in Germany itself only in the cut version under the counter....In germany, some of the violent scenes were cut from the movie Basic Instinct, in the Usa some sex scenes...I still do not understand why this society has not yet died out....
Yes, violence is everyday life there, but the main thing is to hold the eyes of the children in the zoo, when gorillas mate directly at the window, or a bull elephant reveals that he actually has two trunks-
as I had to experience it myself. In a shrill, overly hysterical female voice : "Ohhhh my Gooooood. Don't look, Kid, don't look ! Close your eyes, baby !" I bet the women sued the zoos for $50 million and won.
Such children go home traumatized, and then have to do a 3-month-long therapy to process this terrible event-and 6 months, if they see their parents naked. Americans reproduce through the petri dish, didn't you know?
Stupidity and violence is an explosive mixture, and where this leads, that shows us the united states of Firerarmerica very impressively...
Well, I've been there a few times, and I just don't think about the fact that every second person is walking around with a gun in his pocket. But don't worry, as long as you don't dare to enter a stranger's garden in the daytime or as a colored person get into a police check, you don't have to fear to be shot.
Do you know the movie The Blob from 1988? In there, two 10 year old kids want to go to the cinema to watch a splatter movie. Here's the dialogue with the mother, which describes the USA in one sentence:
Kid : And then to the Movies.
Mother : What Movie ?
Kid : Garden Tool Massacre. Your basic slice-n-dice.
Mother : Your basic what ?
Kid : This guy in a hockey mask chops up a few teenagers. But don't worry, there's no sex or anything bad."
In the german version, he says:" But dont'worry, there's no Sex-nothing bad".
A few years ago I was in the sauna - here in Germany - and as you may know, in most Central European countries people go to the sauna completely - really completely unclothed (of course not in the Catholic countries, but in Germany there is - fortunately - atheism). Well, there actually came an about 25 years old young man into the sauna-in boxers, and he was visibly shocked that around him many people-men, women, even children, completely naked ran around... That has not been able to grasp. When he actually wanted to enter the sauna cabin with his boxer shorts, he was asked by the sauna master to drop his pants - only the boy couldn't speak German, because he came from glorious America, where nudity in public is punished by the electric chair...dressed, of course.
Thank God he probably didn't have a gun with him, in which case he would have shot a) the saunameister b) 50 saunaguests or c) himself...or d) all of them...The end of the story- he's gone, of course. I bet he hasn't gotten over that experience to this day. "Well, Boy, how was germany ?" "MUUUUM, it was horrible, naked people everywhere-they were all naked, all of them! "That's funny, son-I thought they were all wearing lederhosen there?"
When will that change? Well, rather a blind wheelchair user will climb the Mount Everst by himself, before that happens...
It could be worse- we have a sulcata at my local zoo who often times likes to mate a large rock that's located in his exhibit... It's a nice Exhibit for him (he shares it with our kangaroos and emu), but the mating a rock often makes people feel *uncomfortable*.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
"Removing a comma" is in effect amending the Constitution. Today an insurmountable hurdle.
There is no political will to ban guns in America. There is support for some restrictions but not a ban.
7 facts about guns in the U.S.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I find a lot of the anti-Mexican rhetoric in the pro gun lobby groups to be laughable too and particularly considering that they are the reason why the cartels are so armed to the teeth and in business.
I wonder if some of these "patriots" have the historical awareness to contemplate that prior to the 1840's it was the Mexican government and population that had to contend with a bunch of gun crazy trigger happy American criminals invading their territory and causing problems.
Furthermore, this ended up in war and them having an enormous amount of their country illegaly stolen from them.
I wonder if some of these "patriots" have the historical awareness to contemplate that prior to the 1840's it was the Mexican government and population that had to contend with a bunch of gun crazy trigger happy American criminals invading their territory and causing problems.
Furthermore, this ended up in war and them having an enormous amount of their country illegaly stolen from them.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Oh yes I know and agree that there is never going to be a ban on these sorts of weapons in the USA because of the lack of political will.
Actually I would say I feel quite fatalistic about the issue and don't feel that there really ever will be any kind of workable solution around it.
It makes me feel very sorry for the US population.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
What people in any country in the 21st century have historical awareness or even care? "Old news" Odd as it seems, the lessons of history are used only to support "my" argument not to inform my thinking.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Like hurricanes and blizzards one learns to live with it.