Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ever been to Scotland ?

Fly into London. Spend 2-3 days there.Take a small plane to Ireland. Spend 3-5 days there, skip Scotland

It’s brilliant!

Edinburgh castle

Inverness

Culloden

Glencoe

Fort William.

The Isle of Skye

The Orkney Islands !! Tons of Viking and Neolithic history.

Lots of hunting and fishing opportunities if you are interested. Tons of cool hiking.

Excellent variety of beers.

Well worth a trip. I’ll be there this June.

In '16 we drove all around Ireland as prelude to Scotland. Spent 4 weeks in Ireland amd then 2 in Scotland. Would not waste a minute in Scotland again, but would happily go to Ireland tomorrow.

Many Irish pub crawls where everyone was incredibly friendly inside 5 minutes. Multiple attempts in Scotland and could not engage the first Scot in the first conversation.

Cheap SOBs were afraid to buy anyone a drink! Or accept one lest they feel the need to reciprocate.

Been in a lot of different countries all around the World... no other has been as negative. And Scotch is my drink of choice, over half my blood, and the previous top of my list to visit.

Lagavulin

Ardbeg

Laphroaig

Bruichladdich

Caol Ila

Ardnahoe

Bowmore

Bunnahabhain

Kilchoman

First: I am VERY familiar with the EPA. I worked for my state's environmental agency for 30 years and worked in the RCRA program inspecting factories and businesses that generated and managed hazardous waste. We were authorized and funded by an EPA grant. If anyone is under the impression that companies will manage their waste safely and responsibly without persistent Gov't supervision and enforcement you are kidding yourselves. If you had seen 1/4 of what I have seen over the years of companies thinking they could get away with something or cutting corners and putting their community and people's health in jeopardy to save a few bucks, then YOU would be properly educated.

Second: I guess the working definition of a liberal here on the Fire is anyone who dares disagree with the "wisdom??" of the general consensus. I prefer to make up my own mind based on my actual experiences, observations and personal philosophy. I don't march in lock-step with anyone. I haven't voted for a Democrat in any State or National election in about 30 years, I'm a proud member of the NRA, and a CCP holder. Not exactly typical "Liberal" things. But - - I'm not a fundamentalist christian. I don't burn crosses on black people's lawns. I don't believe conspiracy theories floated by Alex Jones or similar nut jobs. And, I don't own a black rifle with 30,000 rounds of ammo and sit in a bunker praying for another revolution to break out and my IQ is >100. I guess for all that, I'm labeled a "Liberal" here. Most people who actually know me would not refer to me as such. But label and flame away!

I know that facts that don't match up with the Fire's bias aren't welcome here but I will try (once again) to help you understand what actually happened to that river in Colorado. To listen to some of the more misinformed here, one would think that the EPA intentionally and deliberately released that toxic, contaminated water from that mine into the river. The real fault lies with the mine owner who created that toxic waste from his operations and who abandoned that waste and left it in a lagoon. The EPA and their contractors trying to correct the situation ACCIDENTALLY released it. Had it been properly managed as required by the EPA in the first place by the mining company, there would have been no lagoon of waste left behind to cause the problem. Read this paragraph as much as necessary to actually comprehend it.

Is the EPA perfect? No. No gov't agency, company, politician, organization etc is perfect. Have they overstepped their bounds sometimes? Sure! But all things considered, this country is much better off having the EPA (created under the Nixon administration). I see the results of their efforts every time I see a Bald Eagle sitting on the banks of the river that I live on. Something I never thought I would ever see in my lifetime when I was a teen in the 70s. I hope that none of you ever find yourself drinking well-water contaminated by the actions of a company down the road and up-gradient of you. But if you do, and if you find yourself having to contact the EPA looking for help, I hope that you can find someone to take your call, listen to your problem and adequately address the clean-up necessary to give you clean drinking water again, because calling the company yourself and bitching won't help you at all.

I would support a magazine restriction over an outright ban on "assault weapons" (I use the term as it is used in the general media, knowing full well that they aren't) rather than a ban on certain particular rifle platforms or on some defined cosmetic features such as the pistol grip. The ability to shoot 20 or 30 people without reloading is part of what allows so many victims to these mass shooting. Smaller mag capacity would require a shooter bent on mayhem to have to stop and reload allowing more time for people to escape and having to carry a very large quantity of 5 shot mags would be a logistic problem. Again, if we ever needed large magazines, it would be fairly easy to get them. The thing that makes these 5.56 mm rifle seem so "powerful" and objectionable to many people is their high-capacity. If it's either give up on high-capacity mags or the rifles themselves - what would you choose?

I know very well that the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting rifles. But I also understand that a citizenry that appears to be gearing up for a war is scary to the majority of the citizens and to the government. If needed, I could take any of my sporting firearms and defend myself or use them to get a real assault rifle. It's how the partisans in France ended up with German submachine guns. We are losing the PR war for the 2nd Amendment and I think there is some blame to be pointed in our direction. When asked by non-gun owners why we need high capacity "assault weapons" they don't want to hear that we are gearing up for what is in essence a civil war. That's not comforting. It's just a matter of time before all semi-autos are banned (as they were in Australia) and we won't have our Rem 1100 shotguns because some felt it necessary to gear up for war.

Most of you are reading more into my posts than what is there. I agree with civil disobedience and I would not recommend anyone turning in their high capacity mags if they were banned. My point is, if a high mag capacity ban means that you get to use your AR etc. with 5 round mags, isn't that better than an outright ban on the platforms themselves, that would make it very difficult for you to transport or use your AR types again? The NY ban on selling "assault rifles" and the requirement to register them, and the ban on high capacity mags have not been overturned by the courts. Expecting protection from the courts is a long-shot. We either try to appear reasonable and somewhat flexible or they will be made illegal outright. If that happens, by all means, keep them and don't turn them in, but that is defiance and not a victory. They are now calling these firearms "weapons of war" rather than "assault weapons." I'm telling you that they are winning the PR war and with every incident that happens, they win more support. It's just a matter of time before the call for a ban is so overwhelming that the politicians will fold on us. And they will!! We can either find a way for these rifles to appear less dangerous or they will be make them illegal. When that happens, I'm all for civil disobedience like we are doing here in NY.

Cooper57m would fit in fine in Europe.

Do yourself a favor and hit Greece. Spain is nice, Paris is way over-rated , UK .. meh. I would rate Athens above all of them, Spain maybe second.

Went once, it was ok, food bad.