Guns, Guns Guns

Incorrect. Russia invade Poland because of a deal they worked out with Nazi Germany. It wasn't something they were going to do anyway.

The way Nazi Germany could have won WW2 would basically come down to Hitler getting out of the way of his generals. This includes not starting the war before Germany was really ready and not invading Russia before completing the conquest of Europe and properly preparing for that invasion (e.g. winter weather equipment good enough for a Russian winter).

Natas wrote:Their is one way for Nazi Germany to win WW II.
Don't invade Poland first.

Germany invaded Poland first, so France and GB had to declare war on Germany. Two weeks later Russia started to invade Poland from the east. But France and GB never declared war on Russia.

If russia would have invaded first, Germany just had to wait, until France and GB would declare War on Russia. Than Germany could have played the role of the savior to stop the russian aggression.

Without the declaration of war from France and GB, Nazi Germany could have concentrated completly to the east. Hitler never wanted to fight GB and France, but by attacking Poland first he left them no choice.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote: America is one of the accepted short names for the USA. It's an accepted commonly used contraction of the United States of America (which is the only nation in North or South America with 'America' in it) and is used all over the world. Using America for the continent is inaccurate since there are two American continents. It's usually North America or South America and sometimes Central America on the North American continent to describe which areas or continents are meant. Or the Americas when indicating both of them. But to say that using America as the name of the USA is a common linguistic mistake is a mistake on your part. World wide, America means the USA. This is especially true when you can say 'they are Americans' and everyone immediately knows what country you're talking about.

I´m afraid you are incorrect. And if you look it up properly, you will find that i am correct.

I know that because i once had to look it up for a troublesome translation job i did.


"America" the continent refers to North, Central and South America as a single part, and is technically a proper reference due to how it is correct to say "the American continent" and similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America
It can also be considered a northern subcontinent of the Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas
The Americas, or America,[5][6][7] also known as the New World, are the combined continental landmasses of North America and South America

This is similar to how the Indian subcontinent have been dismissed as being it´s own continent.


USA=/=America because the latter is in the former.
Think what it means. United States OF America.
"America" by itself is not in any way the name of the nation.

If you say that someone is ~American, you can correctly refere to a Brazilian, a Canadian or someone from USA just as well.
But if you call someone an ~american, you are specifically showing that you are not using the word in the sense of a NAME, which is the continent, but rather as a descriptive.

For a quick and dirty comparison, if i use "yankee" to refer to someone from USA, i do not capitalise that either as that is also not a proper name.
If i were to write "Yankee" instead, then that becomes the NATO code for a certain class of submarines, as that as far as i know is the only variation on that word that is used as a name.

Look up common accepted use. America is a properly accented name for the US/ And please, no one calls other nationalities in lower case. It's not the french or british or germans. It's the French, the British, the Germans. American is a commonly and -widely- accepted nomenclature meaning a citizen of the United States of America. You go to any nation in the world and say you're an American, unless the people there live in the boondocks, they will know -immediately- what nation you're speaking about.

The North and South American continents are identified as the Americas, not 'America'. When you get into specifics, it's North American, South American, Central American for region. Why? Because there are two continents with the name America on them. America cannot accurately describe/name both of them because you run into the problem of; which one? The northern or southern continent? But there is only one nation in the world with the name America in it, and the common usage has added that single name, to also meaning the United States of America. To keep denying that it is a proper use of the name is being unusually stubborn. Despite what you're claiming, America is an accepted use name of the USA and it's known around the world. Even the foreign media and governments use it. It's common usage, accept it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/18/hard-working-single-mom-purchased-handgun-following-two-robberies-now-she-might-go-to-jail-after-admitting-she-had-it/

The problem in the country is the Democrats view anyone who owns a weapon legally as a criminal. In this video, they are trying to put an average Jane in Jail because she owns an unregistered gun. What would you do in this situation?

Look at what happened in Canada. First, they require an owner to register a weapon. A few years go by and unelected bureaucrat makes a change to the enforcement section and the department sends out letters outlawing .22 caliber single shot rifles that look like AK-47. My friends to the North, please correct me if I am in error. The Canadian government soon struck down the law requiring registration or did I hear or read the story wrong.

In our country anyone caught carrying an unregistered concealable firearm would go to jail, and the great majority of citizens here would agree with that decision.

smr wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/18/hard-working-single-mom-purchased-handgun-following-two-robberies-now-she-might-go-to-jail-after-admitting-she-had-it/

The problem in the country is the Democrats view anyone who owns a weapon legally as a criminal. In this video, they are trying to put an average Jane in Jail because she owns an unregistered gun. What would you do in this situation?

Look at what happened in Canada. First, they require an owner to register a weapon. A few years go by and unelected bureaucrat makes a change to the enforcement section and the department sends out letters outlawing .22 caliber single shot rifles that look like AK-47. My friends to the North, please correct me if I am in error. The Canadian government soon struck down the law requiring registration or did I hear or read the story wrong.

In most countries in the first world, you'd be in jail so fast your head would spin for that crime. unregistered guns are illegal here.

smr wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/18/hard-working-single-mom-purchased-handgun-following-two-robberies-now-she-might-go-to-jail-after-admitting-she-had-it/

The problem in the country is the Democrats view anyone who owns a weapon legally as a criminal. In this video, they are trying to put an average Jane in Jail because she owns an unregistered gun. What would you do in this situation?

Look at what happened in Canada. First, they require an owner to register a weapon. A few years go by and unelected bureaucrat makes a change to the enforcement section and the department sends out letters outlawing .22 caliber single shot rifles that look like AK-47. My friends to the North, please correct me if I am in error. The Canadian government soon struck down the law requiring registration or did I hear or read the story wrong.

The gun was "properely registered" in the State that the women lived in. She was unfortunate enough to take a wrong turn into a different state. Rather than allow her ton turn around and go home, they try to make the gun a capital crime.

Be aware that the police that are being so hard nosed allow the majority of murders in their jurisdiction to remain unsolved.

Spacekiwi wrote:In most countries in the first world, you'd be in jail so fast your head would spin for that crime. unregistered guns are illegal here.

smr wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/18/hard-working-single-mom-purchased-handgun-following-two-robberies-now-she-might-go-to-jail-after-admitting-she-had-it/

The problem in the country is the Democrats view anyone who owns a weapon legally as a criminal. In this video, they are trying to put an average Jane in Jail because she owns an unregistered gun. What would you do in this situation?

Look at what happened in Canada. First, they require an owner to register a weapon. A few years go by and unelected bureaucrat makes a change to the enforcement section and the department sends out letters outlawing .22 caliber single shot rifles that look like AK-47. My friends to the North, please correct me if I am in error. The Canadian government soon struck down the law requiring registration or did I hear or read the story wrong.

Daryl wrote:Sorry Tenshinai, but speaking as someone who grew up in an English speaking country that is not the USA, we use the term American to refer to a citizen of the USA. We would never use american to refer to a Canadian or Brazilian.

I don´t care what you´re used to, because in this case, as i mentioned before, i actually had to look this up because i was doing a translation job.

What i said was 100% fact. That lots/most people doesn´t know this, that´s another matter.

Daryl wrote:The English language has many irregularities and loves to break rules. I know no Swedish and respect your knowledge of our language, but you are incorrect in this case.

Nope. I checked with 5 dictionary publishers and a few other translators, i KNOW i´m right in this.

And i had to check exactly because it was impossible to be certain if it was an irregularity that should translate over without change.

An error is an error no matter how many people use it.

Daryl wrote:I'd second other views of how people love their country and prefer it to all others

I´d probably rather live in Norway.

Daryl wrote:(unless it's North Korea or Somalia).

Why? Why would you expect them to not be patriotic or nationalistic?
One of the most annoying people i ever went to school with (thankfully just 2 years and very few shared classes) was from Somalia and she was absurdly patriotic.

Daryl wrote:Plus the USA is so big and sure of its self it tends to impact negatively on other countries at times, so we have a legitimate right to be involved in discussions.

Yup.

Zakharra wrote:The North and South American continents are identified as the Americas, not 'America'.

Actually, it´s either ( as my earlier link also indicated ).

Zakharra wrote:And please, no one calls other nationalities in lower case.

That´s the whole point you´re missing. "american" isn´t the NAME or NATIONALITY.

Zakharra wrote:American is a commonly and -widely- accepted nomenclature meaning a citizen of the United States of America.

Ask a decent linguist about that. The meaning is someone from America...

It´s commonly used and accepted as by default referring to people from USA, but that isn´t what it specifically MEANS.
And it IS used to refer to people from ANY part of America, just less common.

Zakharra wrote:But there is only one nation in the world with the name America in it

"OF AMERICA"... And if you don´t understand that distinction, then please drop it.

USA is capitalised because that is the name of the nation.

It was incorrect to use "Soviet" as a name for the nation for the same reason, as the name in that case was properly the "Soviet Union" or USSR.

The correct short form for USA is "United States", or semicorrectly, "US".

Zakharra wrote:To keep denying that it is a proper use of the name is being unusually stubborn.

If i did a professional translation based merely on common usage, i would probably never get another job.

Heck, if i did it according to what is accepted online, since the arrival of internet, i wouldn´t get paid at all, because then quality would be sucktastic.

Not my fault that so many English speakers are unable to speak(or more commonly, write) their own language properly.

Zakharra wrote:Even the foreign media and governments use it. It's common usage, accept it.

And if media was actually lingustically reliable, or at least as much as it was when i was a kid, that might actually be a viable argument.

Not really, but there would have been at least a theoretical possibility.

Natas wrote:Their is one way for Nazi Germany to win WW II.
Don't invade Poland first.

Germany invaded Poland first, so France and GB had to declare war on Germany. Two weeks later Russia started to invade Poland from the east. But France and GB never declared war on Russia.

If russia would have invaded first, Germany just had to wait, until France and GB would declare War on Russia. Than Germany could have played the role of the savior to stop the russian aggression.

Without the declaration of war from France and GB, Nazi Germany could have concentrated completly to the east. Hitler never wanted to fight GB and France, but by attacking Poland first he left them no choice.

Donnachaid already stated why you are wrong overall.

However, one thing to add, Hitler REALLY WANTED to fight France. Payback for the Versaille diktat.

Also, Fr and UK never declared war on USSR, because they knew who the real danger was at the moment.

And do note that Russia=/=USSR, Russia was the single largest part of USSR, and the part with the most influence, but it most certainly never was USSR.

So, what do you think of your good friends now? How would you resolve this crisis. It's a EU problem right?

If the Ukrainians were stealing were stealing oil and gas from Russia or were they collecting the taxes that they charge for going through their Country? Ahhh!!!! Propaganda who is telling the truth the Russians or the Ukrainians?

War is coming, I hope your Country is prepared to fight. Who is the big bad wolf or should I say Bear? Are you willing to fight? Remember the Americans are a fascist police state to the rest of the world? It appears more and more likely we are probably returning to isolationism type of policies? We probably can not be relied on past the next election cycle. I hope you are investing in a good military rather than the social spending that seems endemic to Western Civilization.

Tenshinai wrote:

Natas wrote:Their is one way for Nazi Germany to win WW II.
Don't invade Poland first.

Germany invaded Poland first, so France and GB had to declare war on Germany. Two weeks later Russia started to invade Poland from the east. But France and GB never declared war on Russia.

If russia would have invaded first, Germany just had to wait, until France and GB would declare War on Russia. Than Germany could have played the role of the savior to stop the russian aggression.

Without the declaration of war from France and GB, Nazi Germany could have concentrated completly to the east. Hitler never wanted to fight GB and France, but by attacking Poland first he left them no choice.

Donnachaid already stated why you are wrong overall.

However, one thing to add, Hitler REALLY WANTED to fight France. Payback for the Versaille diktat.

Also, Fr and UK never declared war on USSR, because they knew who the real danger was at the moment.

And do note that Russia=/=USSR, Russia was the single largest part of USSR, and the part with the most influence, but it most certainly never was USSR.